> What are the pros and cons of adopting these requirements
> and how do you feel about them?

I won't be adopting them.

Cheers
Randy

> What are the pros and cons of adopting these requirements
> and how do you feel about them?

I won't be adopting them.

Cheers
Randy
===================

Me neither. If I get a report from a geocacher that they have found one of
my boxes, I usually relocate my box so the logbook doesn't fill up with a
bunch of GC people logging in. That's about it as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not going to spend my time on the GC website researching GC locations,
but if I find out my box is close, I'll move it. I don't intentionally
place my boxes near other letterboxes, but if it so happens that a mystery
box is nearby that I am unaware of, well that's the way it goes. The people
that have figured out the Mystery box will be able to find 2 boxes in the
same vicinity.

Wisconsin Hiker



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's nice to find two boxes close together from a hunters point of
view, but that can be a little hard on the environemnt. I beleive
that as far as GC are concerned, they are trying to minimize the
impact of the caches on the places where they are hidden.

That is also the reasoning for making sure that you can maintain the
cache, that is way they have a max distance from home.

I mention these because the Department of Environmental Conservation
of New York State is watching GC very closely and they are looking
and they are not real happy about them being on state land.

If the baxes are maintaned and far enough apart they really cannot
find a reason to ban them.

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Debbie Kotlarek"
wrote:
>
> > What are the pros and cons of adopting these requirements
> > and how do you feel about them?
>
> I won't be adopting them.
>
> Cheers
> Randy
> ===================
>
> Me neither. If I get a report from a geocacher that they have
found one of
> my boxes, I usually relocate my box so the logbook doesn't fill up
with a
> bunch of GC people logging in. That's about it as far as I'm
concerned.
> I'm not going to spend my time on the GC website researching GC
locations,
> but if I find out my box is close, I'll move it. I don't
intentionally
> place my boxes near other letterboxes, but if it so happens that a
mystery
> box is nearby that I am unaware of, well that's the way it goes.
The people
> that have figured out the Mystery box will be able to find 2 boxes
in the
> same vicinity.
>
> Wisconsin Hiker
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In Wisconsin you are more likely to see a "social trail" from deer than
letterboxers. Even in our wooded yard there are plenty of trails from deer.
However I don't think the undergrowth and plant life is suffering unduly as
a result.

Wisconsin Hiker


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"One is that you cannot plant another cache within 0.10 mi of another cache and your home coordinates must be within 50 miles of your cache so that you are close enough to maintain it."

I think the intent of those requierments is good, but I am ever so grateful that letterboxers who travel have been willing to make plants in far flung places. For instance, there are quite a few boxes in the Caribbean, and I hope to plant a few there myself, that wouldn't be there if the owners had to be within 50 miles of their plant. JMHO.
Bumma


----- Original Message ----
From: Baker
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:37:44 PM
Subject: [LbNA] Distance between plants and ability to maintain discussion


In order to post a geocache that you hide you must meet a couple of
requirements. One is that you cannot plant another cache within 0.10 mi
of another cache and your home coordinates must be within 50 miles of
your cache so that you are close enough to maintain it.

What are the pros and cons of adopting these requirements and how do
you feel about them?



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I mention these because the Department of Environmental Conservation
> of New York State is watching GC very closely and they are looking
> and they are not real happy about them being on state land.
>
> If the baxes are maintaned and far enough apart they really cannot
> find a reason to ban them.

If impact of objects' on the environment is the issue, I would argue
that placing less total objects, and making the clues to the objects
more difficult, is a much better way to tackle the problem than doing
so via proximity rules. I would argue that each object placed adds
an incremental impact, which is primarily a function of its difficulty
and sensitivity of its location, not its proximity to something else.

Put another way, if someone placed an object within 2 feet of one I've
placed, I assure you the impact of the one I've placed would not be
affected.

The intent may be fine, but the implementation is downright silly.

JMHO, of course
Randy

"I mention these because the Department of Environmental Conservation
of New York State is watching GC very closely and they are looking
and they are not real happy about them being on state land.."

Two reasons for this:

1. Although some pretend to be.....no state DEC's or DEP's are pleased
with either Letterboxing or Geocaching....some have bended to the
inevitability of it all....

2. They are either not making any money off permits for it....or not
making as much as they want to....

Oh I am certain and you make a great point here that they may be seeing
if there is a way that they can make some money on this. The NY State
DEC is always looking for cash.


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "John"
wrote:
>
> "I mention these because the Department of Environmental Conservation
> of New York State is watching GC very closely and they are looking
> and they are not real happy about them being on state land.."
>
> Two reasons for this:
>
> 1. Although some pretend to be.....no state DEC's or DEP's are
pleased
> with either Letterboxing or Geocaching....some have bended to the
> inevitability of it all....
>
> 2. They are either not making any money off permits for it....or not
> making as much as they want to....
>

That is right know and as far as Lb'es go in my region I think that we
are in the same boat as you are, however geocaches are getting a little
thick here and if they were planted closer to each other there would be
an adverse impact I believe.


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Debbie Kotlarek"
wrote:
>
> In Wisconsin you are more likely to see a "social trail" from deer
than
> letterboxers. Even in our wooded yard there are plenty of trails
from deer.
> However I don't think the undergrowth and plant life is suffering
unduly as
> a result.
>
> Wisconsin Hiker
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall wrote:
>
>
What you are not taking into consideration is the increase in the
number of finders and if there are more and more boxes placed closer
to each other with more finders, all of which are not of the "leave
no trace philosophy, the implementation is not silly but necessary
especally in alpine and such sensitive stones."


> > I mention these because the Department of Environmental
Conservation
> > of New York State is watching GC very closely and they are
looking
> > and they are not real happy about them being on state land.
> >
> > If the baxes are maintaned and far enough apart they really
cannot
> > find a reason to ban them.
>
> If impact of objects' on the environment is the issue, I would argue
> that placing less total objects, and making the clues to the objects
> more difficult, is a much better way to tackle the problem than
doing
> so via proximity rules. I would argue that each object placed adds
> an incremental impact, which is primarily a function of its
difficulty
> and sensitivity of its location, not its proximity to something
else.
>
> Put another way, if someone placed an object within 2 feet of one
I've
> placed, I assure you the impact of the one I've placed would not be
> affected.
>
> The intent may be fine, but the implementation is downright silly.
>
> JMHO, of course
> Randy
>

> What you are not taking into consideration is the increase in the
> number of finders and if there are more and more boxes placed closer
> to each other with more finders, all of which are not of the "leave
> no trace philosophy, the implementation is not silly but necessary
> especally in alpine and such sensitive stones."

I can't even parse that, much less consider it. Its even tougher
with a golden monkey (or two) on one's back, I'll admit ;-)

I'm suggesting that impact is directly proportional to quantity
and difficulty of locating objects. You seem to be suggesting that
there is a non-linear impact resulting from proximity of non-related
objects. I'm disputing the latter. In fact, I'm 100% certain that
objects placed by me do not increase the impact of proximate unrelated
objects placed by others, and that those selfsame objects do not
increase the impact of objects placed by myself. Further, I assert
that if concern for the environment is the true motivating issue,
the remedy is less objects, and less visits to the objects placed,
not silly 528 foot rules.

Intelligent people are free to disagree on these points; all we need
is to find the intelligent people :-). Be all that as it may, you,
or anyone else, are free to not place an object within 528 feet of
one I've placed, if you want to.

Now, in the words of the immortal Messiah, "Who am i? Why am I here?
Forget the questions someone get me another beer".

Cheers
Randy
PS, if this rule were implemented in Chester County, about 24500
objects could still be placed (not including mine, which will not
be observing the 528 foot rule). Thought y'all would like to know
that. I certainly was curious.

"..Now, in the words of the immortal Messiah, "Who am i? Why am I
here?..."

If you recall, these were also the words spoken by Ross Perot's running
mate during a televised press conference. It made for great theater...

And his name was....?..... An easy few second Google Search

what i would like to know is why 528 feet? why not 525 feet or maybe even
531 feet. how does one figure the feet anyway. do i have to take a tape
measure with me? can i use my own feet or do i have to carry a size 11 shoe
along as well. is this as the crow flies or do i have to go around rocks?
geez, i think i like the simplicity of letterboxing. let's leave the
complication to the geocachers.
smile
uneksia

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On the other hand I recently saw an article about the environmental impact of
tourism that suggested that large resorts are better than "eco-tourism" because
they concentrate the impact in one spot, away from sensitive places (that
aren't already ruined, anyway). Similar logic would suggest that if you truly
want to protect the environment, planting boxes/caches closer together is the
way to go. You're going up the path anyway, why not look for a couple dozen
instead of just one or two?

Not sure I actually agree with that thinking, but it's an interesting way to
look at it.

The problem with rules and standards and minimums is that human nature tends to
turn them into the best you're going to get.

Weird Dana

--- Randy Hall wrote:
...
> Further, I assert
> that if concern for the environment is the true motivating issue,
> the remedy is less objects, and less visits to the objects placed,
> not silly 528 foot rules.
...

> The problem with rules and standards and minimums is
> that human nature tends to turn them into the best
> you're going to get.

Another problem with them is that the people making them are
not qualified to do so. As was alluded to in a few other
posts in this thread, what science has determined that the
528 foot rule has any desired effect other than keeping
objects 528 feet apart?

If the environment is the concern, density policies should
be set on a location by location basis the by people managing
the location, not by remote web site operators or people
placing the objects. Also, as has been previously pointed
out by others, many letterboxers do not use GPS devices or
web sites capable of enforcing these rules anyway). And
I'd bet most geocachers do not look for objects outside the
particular web site they happen to be using.

Ok, here's a little math quiz based on this for the
interested. Assuming the 528 foot rule is enforced, and
assuming regular hexagonal tessellation, approximately
how many objects could be placed in French Creek State
Park?

1) 36
2) 336
3) 1036
4) 3336
5) 10336
6) French Creek has too many trees to assume an object can
be placed at the exact center of a regular hexagon

Cheers
Randy

"Ok, here's a little math quiz based on this for the
interested. Assuming the 528 foot rule is enforced, and
assuming regular hexagonal tessellation, approximately
how many objects could be placed in French Creek State
Park?"

Ok...let me pass this one through the flux capacitor and then I'll
break it down by use of a Tesla Coil that is set to the cosecant of
Theta as relative to its iambic pentameter...

I'll get back to you on it....

Now THIS the LbNA I remember LOL. Just to keep this post on topic. I tried GC'ing in my area
Hudson Valley and gave it up because caches were being placed SO far off trail that I needed a
machete to get to them in mid July. Not worth the ticks and critters. Not to mention they were
right on top of each other and I'd find sometimes 2 or 3 WRONG ones before I found the one I'd set
out for.



We're having a bit of an issue here with boxes too. there's no shortage of parkland up here, yet in
one case, someone planted 6 boxes in a 180 acre park that already had 5 boxes. Now I could see if
they were park specific boxes.. Maybe had some historical or even emotional connection to said park,
but we're talking random store bought stamps (she says as she ducks the flying inkpads). For people
who put so little thought in to placement, it has to be about the numbers. Wanting boxers get a
load of their boxes without doing some real work.



Some days the park gets its fair share of traffic and you wind up walking it with the same people
who can't HELP but notice you loitering while they pass on. or walk off trail to get the box. It's
happened a couple of times. boxes on top of boxes.



From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
OK .let me pass this one through the flux capacitor and then I'll
break it down by use of a Tesla Coil that is set to the cosecant of
Theta as relative to its iambic pentameter...

I'll get back to you on it....



_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.3.5
http://www.iolo.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Now THIS the LbNA I remember LOL.

Yes it is. I'm having fun with it. Turning the list
into my personal blog on the subject. But, just like
all these unwanted boxes and geocaches, easy to ignore.

> yet in one case, someone planted 6 boxes in a 180 acre
> park that already had 5 boxes. Now I could see if

Of course, by the 528 foot rule, such a park can hold about
32 boxes. (BTW, for those feverishly doing the math on
my quiz, I was off by a factor of 4. Oh well, tough to
keep those radii and diameters straight when it is too
early in the morning).

> Maybe had some historical or even emotional connection
> to said park, but we're talking random store bought stamps

Or perhaps part of a complicated puzzle. I assure you
it has been done before with random store bought stamps
and trivial boxes. How else is one to cover one's tracks?

It just goes to show, who is to judge these things, and
make these rules?

> For people who put so little thought in to placement,
> it has to be about the numbers.

Ouch.

Cheers
Randy

I find it to be impossible to even enforce such an idea since letterboxes arent geo-referenced anywhere. As analog as letterboxing is I dont exactly see letterboxers out in the world with tape measures even voluntarily trying to adhere to the guidelines to keep them .1 miles from each other.

For clarification, the .1 mile guideline is a guideline not a hard and fast rule. Although saturation is one reason for the guideline it is also a practical one. Caches too close together can often be confused with each other. As referenced in this mailing list you will often find a cache at a good letterbox hiding space. If theres a natural barrier that can differentiate two caches the .1 mile guideline is waived.

As an aside, Id caution the letterboxers on this list not to pooh pooh the geocaching community to inflate their own personal ego that letterboxing is right while geocaching is wrong. Often we deal with a lot of issues that the letterboxing community has yet to realize due to the very nature of the activity. Saying that letterboxers are more or less environmentally conscious is wrong its just that letterboxers in its secretive nature isnt as public as geocaching is. We as geocachers have to keep an ongoing positive relationship with land managers which ultimately benefits you in letterboxing.

Jeremy



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall wrote:

> I'm suggesting that impact is directly proportional to quantity
> and difficulty of locating objects. You seem to be suggesting that
> there is a non-linear impact resulting from proximity of non-related
> objects. I'm disputing the latter. In fact, I'm 100% certain that
> objects placed by me do not increase the impact of proximate
unrelated
> objects placed by others, and that those selfsame objects do not
> increase the impact of objects placed by myself. Further, I assert
> that if concern for the environment is the true motivating issue,
> the remedy is less objects, and less visits to the objects placed,
> not silly 528 foot rules.
>
> Intelligent people are free to disagree on these points; all we need
> is to find the intelligent people :-). Be all that as it may, you,
> or anyone else, are free to not place an object within 528 feet of
> one I've placed, if you want to.

I will admit that the impact on the environment is in relation to how
difficult the item is to find. Now, geocahers are at a disadvantage
here, becasue they just like to give coordinates and not clues (they
do have that opton that I wish more would use especally in "hiding
spot" rich locations). No matter how clever and intellegent a placer
writes his or her clues, there is the potential to have people have
to look around in order to find their box. I believe that the more
boxes in a close area the higher the impact on the area.

Let me give an example. There is a cache hidden about 400 feet off
trail. There is a logical exit point from the trail that myself and
the five other finders have used. This path takes you across a lichen
covered sheet of rock, that shows and will show the passing of the
people that found that cache. I walked around and didn't add to the
disfigurement of nature. There are a lot of lichen coveredrocks in
the area and if you hid a letterbox within 100 feet of that cache, no
matter how clever your clues are, there is going to be an increase in
the impact on the land.

> Now, in the words of the immortal Messiah, "Who am i? Why am I here?
> Forget the questions someone get me another beer".
>
> Cheers
> Randy
> PS, if this rule were implemented in Chester County, about 24500
> objects could still be placed (not including mine, which will not
> be observing the 528 foot rule). Thought y'all would like to know
> that. I certainly was curious.
>

Sounds like an issue you have with geocaches, therefore perhaps you'd
like to take this conversation over to that group? This is not
geocaching. We do things differently and I am so glad we do as I
simply do not care for much about geocaching, which is why I letterbox.

I don't understand why people keep trying to change this game to suit
their needs instead of finding a game that is more to their liking?

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Baker" wrote:
>
> It's nice to find two boxes close together from a hunters point of
> view, but that can be a little hard on the environemnt. I beleive
> that as far as GC are concerned, they are trying to minimize the
> impact of the caches on the places where they are hidden.
>

Yes, and we really should have a guideline to keep the deer from doing this. It creates confusion with social trails created by letterboxers & geocachers. There have been a number of times that I've followed "social trails" to suspicious piles of rock that did not conceal anything at all. What a letdown.

Sheba

Debbie Kotlarek wrote:
In Wisconsin you are more likely to see a "social trail" from deer than
letterboxers. Even in our wooded yard there are plenty of trails from deer.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

By placing these requirements and restrictions on boxes you are
effectively stifling the creativity in boxes. As I have a bonus box
placed just 10 feet from a box in the series. It is a cheesy series
and its meant to be. I have/had a mystery box that was very close to
a micro cash. Although the placing of this box can not be moved to
fit with the clue. Box will be replaced soon. Both boxes go against
these rules and creativity as I believe that they are two of my most
creative boxes I have.

Schizokeet.


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Baker" wrote:
>
> In order to post a geocache that you hide you must meet a couple of
> requirements. One is that you cannot plant another cache within 0.10 mi
> of another cache and your home coordinates must be within 50 miles of
> your cache so that you are close enough to maintain it.
>
> What are the pros and cons of adopting these requirements and how do
> you feel about them?
>

I'm not anti-caching. I'm a gadget lovin' gal so caching is right up my alley. I'm even saving
for a new GPS, but trek for trek, I get more satisfaction from letterboxing than caching,
especially when the kids are involved. It was great in the beginning but I think the burden of
having to maintain a stockpile of trinkets might be more than some can manage. We've found a
number of a caches that had pure junk in them. what the hell am I supposed to do with ONE flip flop?
A USED flip flop at that! I'd rather hunt for the cache and find it empty. We came across a cache
that had Peanut Butter Crackers in it. How that for Racoon Bait?

TT



From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Irish
As an aside, I'd caution the letterboxers on this list not to pooh pooh the geocaching community



_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.3.5
http://www.iolo.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No I think that I will keep the conversation here, but thank you for
directing me to another outlet. I am a letterboxer who geocaches. I
am not trying to change the game so take it easy. What I am doing is
raising the issue of impact on the area of the plant and ones ability
to maintain ones plants. These are issues that we are going to have
to deal with as this activity gain popularity.

I have my own preferences, however, I am not trying to push them on
your or anyone else for that matter...just a discussion.


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "alwayschaos"
wrote:
>
> Sounds like an issue you have with geocaches, therefore perhaps
you'd
> like to take this conversation over to that group? This is not
> geocaching. We do things differently and I am so glad we do as I
> simply do not care for much about geocaching, which is why I
letterbox.
>
> I don't understand why people keep trying to change this game to
suit
> their needs instead of finding a game that is more to their liking?
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Baker"
wrote:
> >
> > It's nice to find two boxes close together from a hunters point
of
> > view, but that can be a little hard on the environemnt. I beleive
> > that as far as GC are concerned, they are trying to minimize the
> > impact of the caches on the places where they are hidden.
> >
>

Establishing set distances......Hog wash!

If you are really concerned about impact then just make your clues a
bit more obscure.

I believe Randy did cover this aspect of letterboxing but many just
overlooked this point. Try looking for a Map Surfer box sometime!!!!!

Letterboxing has had many of its concepts "dumbed down". Look how
many drivebys there are (yes we have planted some ourselves).

Make your clues tougher so that they aren't found by everyone just
walking 50 steps along the main trail under the first oak on your
left.

Now to Jeremy's points.

Please don't try to be so high and mighty. We (Gwen and Don) have had
one of our letterbox location usurped by a Geocacher placing the
cache directly under our letterbox.
We have had several of our stamps go missing in some of our "marked"
letterboxes and the Geocacherswrote in the logbooks that they really
liked the stamp!
Several of our letterboxes in a series were used as gps points for
the geocacher's cache.
Anytime we have a letterbox and a geocache moves into the area, we
move our box. It is just easier than to hassle trying to get our
stamps back.

While generally you do a good at groundspeak, I don't think it is so
great that it can't use a little prodding.

You are right the two hobbies/games are just different enough that
the same exact rules will not work.

You think Geocaching is the best, many of us just differ in our
opinion.

Don

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Baker"
wrote:
>
> No I think that I will keep the conversation here, but thank you
for
> directing me to another outlet. I am a letterboxer who geocaches. I
> am not trying to change the game so take it easy. What I am doing
is
> raising the issue of impact on the area of the plant and ones
ability
> to maintain ones plants. These are issues that we are going to have
> to deal with as this activity gain popularity.
>
> I have my own preferences, however, I am not trying to push them on
> your or anyone else for that matter...just a discussion.
>
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "alwayschaos"
> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like an issue you have with geocaches, therefore perhaps
> you'd
> > like to take this conversation over to that group? This is not
> > geocaching. We do things differently and I am so glad we do as I
> > simply do not care for much about geocaching, which is why I
> letterbox.
> >
> > I don't understand why people keep trying to change this game to
> suit
> > their needs instead of finding a game that is more to their
liking?
> >
> > --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Baker"
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's nice to find two boxes close together from a hunters point
> of
> > > view, but that can be a little hard on the environemnt. I
beleive
> > > that as far as GC are concerned, they are trying to minimize
the
> > > impact of the caches on the places where they are hidden.
> > >
> >
>

I don't exchange any swag. I noticed a couple of years ago that
people were just signing the log. I decided to creat a geocaching
stamp and I stamp in the logbook instead of leaving anything. The
trinkets seem more for kids anyway.


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, AC wrote:
>
> I'm not anti-caching. I'm a gadget lovin' gal so caching is right
up my alley. I'm even saving
> for a new GPS, but trek for trek, I get more satisfaction from
letterboxing than caching,
> especially when the kids are involved. It was great in the
beginning but I think the burden of
> having to maintain a stockpile of trinkets might be more than some
can manage. We've found a
> number of a caches that had pure junk in them. what the hell am I
supposed to do with ONE flip flop?
> A USED flip flop at that! I'd rather hunt for the cache and find
it empty. We came across a cache
> that had Peanut Butter Crackers in it. How that for Racoon Bait?
>
> TT
>
>
>
> From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-
usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Irish
> As an aside, I'd caution the letterboxers on this list not to pooh
pooh the geocaching community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________
> No viruses found in this outgoing message
> Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.3.5
> http://www.iolo.com
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Actually most of my plats are a mile plus from the road. Most of the
close by "interesting places" have a resident Lb and GC. Put some
want to add more. Me I am hoping for the few who will hike 5280 feet
in :)

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gwendontoo"
wrote:
>
> Establishing set distances......Hog wash!
>
> If you are really concerned about impact then just make your clues
a
> bit more obscure.
>
> I believe Randy did cover this aspect of letterboxing but many just
> overlooked this point. Try looking for a Map Surfer box
sometime!!!!!
>
> Letterboxing has had many of its concepts "dumbed down". Look how
> many drivebys there are (yes we have planted some ourselves).
>
> Make your clues tougher so that they aren't found by everyone just
> walking 50 steps along the main trail under the first oak on your
> left.
>
> Now to Jeremy's points.
>
> Please don't try to be so high and mighty. We (Gwen and Don) have
had
> one of our letterbox location usurped by a Geocacher placing the
> cache directly under our letterbox.
> We have had several of our stamps go missing in some of
our "marked"
> letterboxes and the Geocacherswrote in the logbooks that they
really
> liked the stamp!
> Several of our letterboxes in a series were used as gps points for
> the geocacher's cache.
> Anytime we have a letterbox and a geocache moves into the area, we
> move our box. It is just easier than to hassle trying to get our
> stamps back.
>
> While generally you do a good at groundspeak, I don't think it is
so
> great that it can't use a little prodding.
>
> You are right the two hobbies/games are just different enough that
> the same exact rules will not work.
>
> You think Geocaching is the best, many of us just differ in our
> opinion.
>
> Don
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Baker"
> wrote:
> >
> > No I think that I will keep the conversation here, but thank you
> for
> > directing me to another outlet. I am a letterboxer who geocaches.
I
> > am not trying to change the game so take it easy. What I am doing
> is
> > raising the issue of impact on the area of the plant and ones
> ability
> > to maintain ones plants. These are issues that we are going to
have
> > to deal with as this activity gain popularity.
> >
> > I have my own preferences, however, I am not trying to push them
on
> > your or anyone else for that matter...just a discussion.
> >
> >
> > --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "alwayschaos"

> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds like an issue you have with geocaches, therefore perhaps
> > you'd
> > > like to take this conversation over to that group? This is not
> > > geocaching. We do things differently and I am so glad we do as
I
> > > simply do not care for much about geocaching, which is why I
> > letterbox.
> > >
> > > I don't understand why people keep trying to change this game
to
> > suit
> > > their needs instead of finding a game that is more to their
> liking?
> > >
> > > --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Baker"
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's nice to find two boxes close together from a hunters
point
> > of
> > > > view, but that can be a little hard on the environemnt. I
> beleive
> > > > that as far as GC are concerned, they are trying to minimize
> the
> > > > impact of the caches on the places where they are hidden.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

> I won't be adopting them.


I concur!!!

Jiffy

The Post Dispatch ran (not associated with an article) a photo of a
letterboxing class at Powder Valley nature center (a MO Dept. of
Conservation facility).

And from the Missouri Department of Conservation St. Louis Regional
Newsletter:

Nature's Niche: Real Life Scavenger Hunt
Tuesday 10am-Noon
(Ages 50 & Up)
Letterboxing is a real-life scavenger hunt that started in England in
1854 with a calling card hidden in a bottle. Over the years it has
grown into apopular internationalhobby, with thousands of letterboxes
hidden all over the world. Come learn the basics of this hobby to get
started. You will create your own unique rubber stamp, find hidden
boxes and get a chance to hide your own letterbox. (Reservations
begin April 29.)

Seems to me they can't be too opposed to it if they're teaching people
to do it.

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "John"
wrote:
>
> "I mention these because the Department of Environmental Conservation
> of New York State is watching GC very closely and they are looking
> and they are not real happy about them being on state land.."
>
> Two reasons for this:
>
> 1. Although some pretend to be...no state DEC's or DEP's are pleased
> with either Letterboxing or Geocaching....some have bended to the
> inevitability of it all....
>
> 2. They are either not making any money off permits for it....or not
> making as much as they want to....

Hey, I helped teach that class. Are you a boxer here
in MO? While Powder Valley taught the class, they do
not allow planting on their property. The B Hunters
--- Matthew Keeler wrote:

> The Post Dispatch ran (not associated with an
> article) a photo of a
> letterboxing class at Powder Valley nature center (a
> MO Dept. of
> Conservation facility).
>
> And from the Missouri Department of Conservation St.
> Louis Regional
> Newsletter:
>
> Nature's Niche: Real Life Scavenger Hunt
> Tuesday 10am-Noon
> (Ages 50 & Up)
> Letterboxing is a real-life scavenger hunt that
> started in England in
> 1854 with a calling card hidden in a bottle. Over
> the years it has
> grown into apopular internationalhobby, with
> thousands of letterboxes
> hidden all over the world. Come learn the basics of
> this hobby to get
> started. You will create your own unique rubber
> stamp, find hidden
> boxes and get a chance to hide your own letterbox.
> (Reservations
> begin April 29.)
>
> Seems to me they can't be too opposed to it if
> they're teaching people
> to do it.
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "John"
>
> wrote:
> >
> > "I mention these because the Department of
> Environmental Conservation
> > of New York State is watching GC very closely and
> they are looking
> > and they are not real happy about them being on
> state land.."
> >
> > Two reasons for this:
> >
> > 1. Although some pretend to be...no state DEC's
> or DEP's are pleased
> > with either Letterboxing or Geocaching....some
> have bended to the
> > inevitability of it all....
> >
> > 2. They are either not making any money off
> permits for it....or not
> > making as much as they want to....
>
>
>
>

"If the boxes are maintaned and far enough apart they really cannot
find a reason to ban them."

I beg to differ with this statement. Imagine receiving the following
update on one of your boxes:

Dear Planter,
Your box/cache has been found and can be retrieved at the park office.
Signed,
Your Friendly neighborhood Park Ranger

Now, off you go to the park to retrieve your box/cache. However, when
you arrive, you are handed your box, and a $300 fine for littering.

Trust me, if the parks wanted to ban all boxes and caches and make some
money off if them, they could. Every single letterbox and geocache is
technically litter. Just my two cents and the two cents of a ranger at
a local preserve where a geo-cache was seized a couple of months ago
that contained drugs, drug paraphenalia, and pornography.

Florida Sunsets

Baker wrote:
> In order to post a geocache that you hide you must meet a couple of
> requirements. One is that you cannot plant another cache within 0.10 mi
> of another cache and your home coordinates must be within 50 miles of
> your cache so that you are close enough to maintain it.
>
> What are the pros and cons of adopting these requirements and how do
> you feel about them?
>

I am with Randy on this one, I won't be adopting them either. I plant
boxes near and far, and if any of the current databases tell me I have
to do it the way they want me to do it, then I will simply not post my
clues there. There are plenty of outlets for clues, including my own
website and this list.

They can do their own thing, I have no problem with Geocaching, but this
is not Geocaching and I don't play that game, nor do I want to.
Letterboxing, I feel, is much more organic in its nature. There is
greater creativity, from the logbooks, to the locations, to the stamps
and boxes themselves and the clues. Sure, there are plenty of little
boxes, boxes placed simply to place a box, but at the same time there
are a ton of boxes out there that are extremely innovative, clever and
creative. I think the way in which letterboxing is done, with clues and
a stamp, alone allows for better boxes that I can imagine being
conceived with the geocaching method.

The best thing for you to do, instead of asking repeated questions
comparing letterboxing to geocaching, is to simply get out there and
box, and see what you find.

--
Nathan Brown

AKA Cyclonic
Penncoasters.com

The Insensitivity rolls on...

Vader '08
Embrace the Dark Side!

McCarthy was RIGHT!

Well, not only that, but there is no "enforcement" concept in LB.

If someone plants a box in a questionable location, where its discovery
is likely to tarnish the reputation of the hobby, then it is up to the
more experienced members of the LB community to try to contact the
placer and instruct them.

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Jeremy Irish" wrote:
>
> I find it to be impossible to even enforce such an idea since
letterboxes aren't geo-referenced anywhere.

I am sure that what you say is true. I have seen some very
interesting stamps, and clever hides in beautiful locations. However,
the most creative item that I have found so far is a very very clever
cache.




--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Nathan Brown
wrote:
>
> I am with Randy on this one, I won't be adopting them either. I
plant
> boxes near and far, and if any of the current databases tell me I
have
> to do it the way they want me to do it, then I will simply not post
my
> clues there. There are plenty of outlets for clues, including my
own
> website and this list.
>
> They can do their own thing, I have no problem with Geocaching, but
this
> is not Geocaching and I don't play that game, nor do I want to.
> Letterboxing, I feel, is much more organic in its nature. There is
> greater creativity, from the logbooks, to the locations, to the
stamps
> and boxes themselves and the clues. Sure, there are plenty of
little
> boxes, boxes placed simply to place a box, but at the same time
there
> are a ton of boxes out there that are extremely innovative, clever
and
> creative. I think the way in which letterboxing is done, with
clues and
> a stamp, alone allows for better boxes that I can imagine being
> conceived with the geocaching method.
>
> The best thing for you to do, instead of asking repeated questions
> comparing letterboxing to geocaching, is to simply get out there
and
> box, and see what you find.
>
> --
> Nathan Brown
>
> AKA Cyclonic
> Penncoasters.com
>
> The Insensitivity rolls on...
>
> Vader '08
> Embrace the Dark Side!
>
> McCarthy was RIGHT!
>

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, AC wrote:
>
>
> what the hell am I supposed to do with ONE flip flop?
> A USED flip flop at that!
>
> TT
>
LOL Why not cut it up and make a Letterbox Stamp.

Just a penny thought.
2Cedars
aka The Bunnymuncher