[Az-Geocaching] http://www.terracaching.com/

[Steven Stringham]

Ok,
I spent some time looking at the site. Again, I am not excited.

Things I like:
1) Locationless caches are back.
2) Virtuals are back.
3) Some excitement over the possibilities.

Things I don't like:
In some ways the self policing policy. Believe it or not. There are no 
overarching, controlled rules. It has quickly become the rebel 
site.Creating the virtual/locationless that would never have been 
approved on GC.  In some ways I might be called a prude. Ok, so be it. 
But, I need a site to be family friendly. And, so far it does not seem 
to be. Examples:
Locationless caches listed/discussed:
1) Logging a find in the nude (picture required).
2) Natural Birdies (nature's examples of giving you the finger).
3) Your local bordello. (Pictures/receipts/etc. required for logging a 
find).

Ok, the possibilities of virtuals coming back is nice. But, not with 
this kind of stuff in the mix. I don't need it and I don't want it. Call 
me a prude, or whatever. But, that is how I feel. So, Terracaching is 
off my list for now.

Steven Stringham
StringCachers


Gale wrote:

>
>
>     Ok. Like I said, I mostly joined TC out of curiosity. You can't
>     really
>     see what is there until you are actually sponsored. And I am not
>     excited
>     by what I see so far.
>
>     I am excited. There is so much potential on that site. Granted
>     there is nothing here yet, but we can all build it. You have
>     stated how you miss virtuals. This is a site that lists virtual
>     caches. This is something I miss as well.
>
>     Yes, GC is a bit of a monopoly. But, it is open to find out what is
>     going on even before signing up. (You can see what caches are
>     there!).
>     That also lets land managers search in their areas without
>     "sponsorship". I do kinda have a bit of a problem with the idea that
>     caches could be placed on TC and the land manager can't find out
>     about
>     it. (Can we cache in the McDowell Preserve?).
>
>     The site clearly states that local geocaching land management
>     rules apply. This is a self policing policy though.
>
>     My real question is, how can we work from within GC to change some of
>     this. If posting on a Forum the answer? Is Jeremy the "benevolent
>     dictator"? Does he listen to our concerns, or has he made up his
>     mind,
>     and there is no appeal? I don't know the answer to this question.
>
>     Perhaps Brian is seeing something Im not seeing. I think Jeremy
>     listens somewhat, but he also has his own idea of what geocaching
>     should be, and it does not include some aspects others like. It is
>     his site, so that is his choice, and his right. After 2 years of
>     people requesting virtuals back, dont expect they will return as
>     they used to be.
>
>     I do know we support GC with our subscriptions, and purchases (TB
>     tags,
>     etc.) and activity. It really is a good site, generally. And the
>     programming does keep getting better. I do wish the site would
>     open up
>     to places like AZGC for local support. (Thanks AZGC for all you do!)
>
>     It is a good site for the most part. 
>
>     I think your beef is with the tougher rules. Am I right? So, is
>     there an
>     appeals process? A virtual petition drive perhaps? What does Jeremy
>     listen to?
>
>     Steven Stringham
>     StringCachers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.sequoia.net/pipermail/az-geocaching/attachments/20050315/919be63f/attachment.htm