A new geocaching site with a twist
elr
It adds a little bit to the game.
Joe Shmoe
I wonder how long it will take for you to start getting the death threats
like the old "piratecaching.com" owner did.
I just checked out the forums on your site; I see one of the more
articulate members of the geocaching community was telling you how much he
liked you. :)
Renegade Knight
think anybody should come in guns blazing with a 7th grade vocabulary and
slam you quite like that. It doesn't serve any purpose and it's not like
that's the post thats going to make you change your mind.
"elr" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e8a8b28.0401...@posting.google.com...
un-named user
services (those provided by a geocache's "owner") and my second
reaction was to put a motion-capture camera on my caches (like those
for photographing wildlife) to catch an idiot who would steal the
cache and change it's location.
It's just fine to explore new ideas with respect to the "sport" but
this is an example of a bad idea. A better idea (with the same
rewards to the guy who created the idea of "stashcache") would be to
"enhance" the contents of a geocache in such a way that other people
would go to his site to see what caches he had enhanced. Enhancements
would be things like replacing the "cheep stuff" in a cache with
better cheep stuff, or perhaps putting in a piece of paper leading to
an un-published cache with a cool reward.
The idea of removing the entire cache to a location which could not be
found without visiting an additional web site is stupid. Many people
do not carry wireless laptops into the field and would have their day
ruined by this guy's activities... not to mention the actual cache
being taken away by the property owner when they find that a visitor
has been digging holes and such stupid stuff.
In short, bad idea... keep working on it.
Joe Shmoe
I may misunderstand the guy's motivation for the site but I think it stems
from him having a cache or two not approved on gc.com. (It was on the
forums somewhere, you'll have to look it up if you're interested. He
voiced his displeasure at the approval process and was promptly flamed by
several users.)
I don't think his intention is to enhance the game or "to explore new ideas
with respect to the "sport"...". I don't think he actually plans to
plunder and bury any caches. I think his plan is to rile as many people as
he can. He appears to be succeeding.
It's nice to see some of the weenies on GC.com getting their knickers all
twisted up.
Eric Reynolds
Eric Reynolds, aka Subigo
664 S Kentwood Ave
Springfield, MO 65802-3230
(417)831-4231
yahooIM subigo23
MSN chat Subigo
owner and head pirate of stashethecache.com, and failed hosting company subnixus.net
Joe Shmoe
Yeah right. We really believe you're Eric.
Are you really so concerned about a piece of tupperware that you'd post
someone's address on usenet? Before someone gets hurt, you should see a
psychiatrist because you appear to have a very tenuous grip on reality.
Genode
This guy deserves the jackass award for this one.
"elr" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e8a8b28.0401...@posting.google.com...
Thomas Breimer
> It adds a little bit to the game.
Adds a little bit? Well, our kids would say, it takes a little bit.
Takes about 99% of the fun they get on geocaching. Finding the box,
finding out, what's in it, perhaps trading something.
IMHO some bored weirdos destroy geocaching just for fun.
Thomas Mey
lot/ more serious than I do...
Then again, I wouldn't be subject to his "twist"- my one and only cache
is some thousand miles away from him ;-)
Eric Reynolds
in a nearby park.
That really is my home address, which is why I keep deleting it when
it's posted on my website. Anyone who doesn't think so, I'll be happy
to post proof.
ericrey...@yahoo.com (Eric Reynolds) wrote in message news:<f8901110.04010...@posting.google.com>...
Beej Jorgensen
Eric Reynolds <ericrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've made good on my threat, and stolen 3 local caches and buried them
>in a nearby park.
So, out of curiosity, would it be legal for the owners to dig them up?
-Beej
Brian
It seems like a bad idea to me too. You get board with geocaching so
you start your own game of stealing caches. If you're board with
caching, do something that doesn't impact anyone else.
That said, it should be fairly easy for the local people to figure out
who it is. Once they find out, ask him to stop. If he won't then
extract revenge.
Chobeo
(Thomas Mey) wrote:
> Then again, I wouldn't be subject to his "twist"- my one and only cache
> is some thousand miles away from him ;-)
I don't know or care where you are, but I can't imagine anyone's cache
should be considered out of reach if it's listed on GC.com.
He's actively recruiting people from all over.
I have mixed feelings about all this.
On one hand the people complaining do have a point. His impact is
going to be felt most by the family that goes on a hike on a sunny
Saturday afternoon. Irish will be impacted with the same intensity as
Mopar burning his bra. (read: not much)
Having had many of my own caches swiped by unknown people, I know how
frustrating it is to invest time. money, and energy into a cache only
to watch someone walk off with the glorified grab-bag.
On the other hand, a subset of the community makes it real hard for me
not to giggle as I watch their knickers twist like a 19 year old woman
who's just been whistled at by some burly construction goon.
Stomping your foot and pointing your finger while saying "That's Not
Fair!" is kind of adorable when my six year old does it.
I just wish the geocaching community had been less sheep like.
It's kind of hard to get worked up over a wolf* at this late date.
*okay... shitsu, but at least he's wearing his dog tag.
BSmith
the know"...
While on a multicache mission, the first step was in a mall's multi-level,
outdoor parking lot. Luckily after I found the cache clue and made it back
to my car, a van-equipped mall cop approached and asked me what I was
doing.
{I was suddenly taken back to my days of a teen... just innocently browsing
through airports, trying doors just to explore (way back when you wouldn't
be maced, stripped, striped, and disembowled for being in the "wrong
place" in an airport... so I'm NOT advocating doing that now!).}
...I told him I was just browsing around, taking pictures over the ledge
(opposite side of the lot from the mall itself). He told me I needed to
stop immediately because the mall appearance was considered copyrighted. I
was very amused and smirked, saying, "Are you telling me that the mall
parking lot is copyrighted material?"
He said yes... I said I would not use the pics in any publications. He
said it didn't matter. I would have to stop now. Well, I said OK, got
into my car and drove off.
Now I'm wondering if what this guy said is true (outdoor, public places
being "protected" from photography) or is did someone report seeing me and
he's just keeping me from loitering? It's no big deal, but I'd love to
hear your comments!
Bill
David Gridley
> ledge (opposite side of the lot from the mall itself). He told me I
> needed to stop immediately because the mall appearance was considered
> copyrighted. I was very amused and smirked, saying, "Are you telling
> me that the mall parking lot is copyrighted material?"
I doubt seriously copyright laws cover the outward appearance of a
mall... more likely they were uncomfortable with you taking pictures.
I'd have been less surprised if they'd asked you not to take pictures
inside, but my guess is anything that's clearly visible to the public
"outside" is fair game.
He was just busting yer chops... for all he knew you were casing the
joint for a burglary.
--
- Cache Detective
Get your free Geocaching email account at www.iGeocache.com!
Get YourName @ iGeocache.com or geocacher.us! Tell your Friends!
David Gridley
130.133.1.17:
> Many malls have restrictions on photography. It doesn't matter if
> it's inside or outside, so long as you are on private property, the
> property owner can impose such restrictions. Copyright is
> irrelevant. Property owners can impose such restrictions for any
> reason they want, or for no reason at all if they want. It's their
> property and there's no Constitutional right to using a camera on
> private property.
>
> If you move out to the street (public property), it's another matter
> altogether. You can snap away to your heart's content. The mall's
> rules don't apply on public property.
>
True.. then again, it's commonly held that anything visible from the
public venue can be photographed so long as you're not on private
property.
Hence, we have many photos of movie stars in the buff, if they can be
seen from the public street or adjoining property.
--
- Cache Detective
Get your free Geocaching email account at www.iGeocache.com
Get YourName @ iGeocache.com or Geocacher.us!
BSmith
>
>> Many malls have restrictions on photography. It doesn't matter if
>> it's inside or outside, so long as you are on private property, the
>> property owner can impose such restrictions. Copyright is
>> If you move out to the street (public property), it's another matter
>> altogether. You can snap away to your heart's content. The mall's
Thanks for the comments, guys! I was on mall property, so I guess I can
understand the "rule"... but it still makes the hairs on the back of my
neck crawl to think about the implications! Do journalists have to acquire
permission to take pictures in or around a mall, or dance around the
property line? It's just weird.
I still like to think this is just a canned answer to anyone that they are
trying to shoo away.
Bill
Beej Jorgensen
BSmith <wild...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...I told him I was just browsing around, taking pictures over the ledge
>(opposite side of the lot from the mall itself).
As long as you don't misrepresent yourself, you should be legally ok
talking to the cop.
>He told me I needed to stop immediately because the mall appearance was
>considered copyrighted.
Copyright law specifically allows you to photograph buildings that are
visible from public places. (Unless there's some kind of artwork on the
building--that might get protection.) But you were shooting from
private property, so apply that in a reasonable fashion to this case.
The copyright thing was probably BS, but it really doesn't matter in
this case.
It is private property, so they can definitely ask you to split. They
can't take your camera or film, but they can ask you to stop taking
pictures and/or leave.
Be careful shooting on private property; whether or not consent is
implied for a shot depends on a variety of factors. You might even be
legally liable for in certain cases.
>Now I'm wondering if what this guy said is true (outdoor, public places
>being "protected" from photography)
It was a private lot, I'm presuming, since it had a security guard. But
I don't buy the copyright argument. :)
Like another poster suggested: go out to the public taxpayer-funded
sidewalk and shoot from there. The guard can bitch and moan, but he
can't do anything about it.
Was the first part of the multi a virtual? If not, it would seem to
violate gc.com private property policy, yes?
(Legal information summarized from "Legal Handbook for Photographers" by
Bert P. Krages, Esq.)
HTH,
-Beej
PS. I am not a lawyer.
Beej Jorgensen
David Gridley <da...@geocacher.us> wrote:
>Hence, we have many photos of movie stars in the buff, if they can be
>seen from the public street or adjoining property.
A clarification here--you can't shoot where people would have a
reasonable expectation of privacy. Sunbathing in the back yard? You
definitely take a chance taking that picture. If you set up a telephoto
lens and shoot down the hill into someone's bathroom so you can take
pictures of people showering, well, you won't get away with it.
If they're walking out in public, you're probably ok with the shot.
-Beej
Rosco Bookbinder
You could have always tried the "I'm Geocaching, would you like
to know what it's all about" approach. Be surprised how many
people will stand there and listen. You could be looking for one
of THEIR caches one day.....
stign...@mnsi.net
I tried that approach once. The three security guards were so
impressed they asked me hang around for 2 1/2 hrs to tell the police
about it. I was then asked to not come back for a year.
Wulf
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:24:54 GMT, Rosco Bookbinder <ro...@comcast.net>
wrote:
BSmith
news:c04fc...@enews1.newsguy.com:
> In article <Xns94885402DFC4C...@63.240.76.16>,
> BSmith <wild...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>...I told him I was just browsing around, taking pictures over the ledge
>>(opposite side of the lot from the mall itself).
>
>
> Was the first part of the multi a virtual? If not, it would seem to
> violate gc.com private property policy, yes?
>
> (Legal information summarized from "Legal Handbook for Photographers" by
> Bert P. Krages, Esq.)
>
> HTH,
> -Beej
>
> PS. I am not a lawyer.
>
Thanks for all the comments, Beej! I'll certainly keep it in mind in the
future. The first part can be considered a virtual cache, yes. Nothing to
take and no place to leave things. However... it takes advantage of
inconspicuous graffiti that may or may not have been left by the owner of
the cache.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not in the mood to need one. :)
Bill
Beej Jorgensen
Rosco Bookbinder <ro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You could have always tried the "I'm Geocaching, would you like
>to know what it's all about" approach. Be surprised how many
>people will stand there and listen.
I'd really recommend against do this with cops. They want to assess the
situation completely with no unknowns; anything weird will require more
investigation.
It's best to stick to what the cop understands..."I was taking snapshots
for fun. I didn't know it wasn't ok. I'll stop now." No lies were
spoken, no important details were omitted. The situation is wrapped up
nice and easy, and everyone is happy.
I know cops are out there for our own good and everything, but I predict
you'll be happier if you keep it on a need-to-know basis with them.
-Beej
kav946
it (not a mall cop though). No photos are allowed inside most commercial
establishments without the permission of the company....that even means the
media! (ticks them off too)
Private property is o.k. like most have pointed out...however in Cleveland
the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame building is copyrighted. You may take
pictures from the front, or from the street, but if you publish them
(without permission) you will get sued.
Also more and more public venues are being posted with no photography signs,
due to "anti-terrorism" protections....Now I don't think you could possibly
stop someone from photographing a bridge...at least not a terrorist, only
good people who want pictures would get busted.
--
For more photo's visit http://www.klvance.org
Lighthouse, covered bridge, roads, and travel photography.
Just a personal photo site...no pop-ups...no professional photos...just a
guy, his travels...his camera...and his photos.
"BSmith" <wild...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9488DB4FA4212...@63.240.76.16...
Gary S.
>
>From http://www.publaw.com/photo.html
>
>"The guiding principle, that of course is muddled with exceptions, is that as
>long as a photograph of private property is taken while the photographer is
>on public property or on property that is open to the public then it is
>permissible to publish that photograph without permission from the owner of
>the property."
>
>Note the phrase "muddled with exceptions." Don't assume your rights are
>absolute. If a mall cop tells you that you can't use your camera in the
>parking garage, he's probably right, whether or not he can explain the legal
>reasons why.
Even if you are technically correct, it is not always practical to be
correct, especially if it means getting involved with the lega system
to prove it.
You can be technically correct about who had the right-of-way in a
traffic accident, and still have your car wrecked.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
kav946
the right-of-way" Well, guess what, dead wrong and dead right are both
still dead.
--
For more photo's visit http://www.klvance.org
Lighthouse, covered bridge, roads, and travel photography.
Just a personal photo site...no pop-ups...no professional photos...just a
guy, his travels...his camera...and his photos.
"Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
news:0cdi20lu5j5ue2nhn...@4ax.com...