> Very, very well put, especially for all the "new" letterboxers out there and
> even us "old" ones. We can learn from your comments.

True, especially for certain styles of letterbox clues. There is
much wisdom in that post.

OTOH, for other styles, specific, obvious landmark detail and
redundancy would compromise the challenge that the hunters of these
sorts of boxes are attracted to. Not everyone is attracted to these
sorts of boxes. Armchair treasure hunters are used to having to deal
with the fingerprints of towns, trails, roads, and other features, and
extracting subtlety from vague clues, and realise that things change
over time. I will be revisiting the disclaimer on my web page that
says my boxes are hard and not for the easily disappointed. All of my
clues are listed with date planted so that those who are aware of the
way things change can factor that in. It is important to be aware that
things can change. The only constants are contour detail, large rocks,
and some streams and other water features.

I'd call them "treasureboxes" if the term "letterbox" conjures up
some image of the way things ought to be, to avoid confusion or
having people be frustrated. If most of you feel my letterboxes
don't fit the mold, as it were, its fine with me if the webmasters
don't link to them.

Just as the popularity of geocaching _has_ proven (at least to me),
that GPS coordinates make acceptable clues for these sorts of things,
we may want to be open to _all_ sorts of clues, and ignore the ones we
don't like. I don't like geocaches in general so I ignore them.
But they are still fair game for those who do enjoy them. This is just
one example. There is no (IMHO) "right" way to write a letterbox
clue -- the hider does not owe the hunter a fun hunt, as there are
too many hunters and you cannot write something that will please
everyone. For my part, I will never intentionally write a clue that
knowingly involves trespass, hazards, has errors, or is intentionally
frustrating or unsolvable, but "hard" and "subtle" seem in the spirit
of treasure hunting to me. I will say, that based on off-list
comments, that I believe you missed a key part of one of the boxes you
have alluded to that lead to a longer than expected hike. Moderate
to difficult clues can often be easily misinterpreted. I've done
it myself too many times to count. I was at the park last week, and
the terrain has not changed from when I wrote that clue.

> It's funny but the box's that have been placed in problem areas,
> with vague clues and landmarks seem to be the ones that have no
> stamps in them.

I would actually expect this to be the case.

Again, good, solid advice, but I don't think one-size-fits-all
advice.

Happy hunting and good luck :-)

Cheers

Randy Hall,

Yes, your one size fits ALL reply to my observations seems to be true...
However, you can hide your "treasure-box" on your own land. Then you can
deal with people trampling all over YOUR yard, YOUR home, YOUR garden,
etc... (sorry got off on the wrong foot here...LOL)

In an effort to make your point... you totally missed mine! That is: These
Lands, Parks and Preserves, that we hide box's in, are here for everyone
(ALL)! So, I am sorry to say, but , in my opinion, you need to consider
that the majority of the visitors to these places aren't hunting the
letterbox there. To have people chasing vague clues, destroying grass,
plant-life, animal den's, moss, turning over rocks, & digging in some vain
effort to find a box is just silly.

Not all letter-boxer's (including myself) have the expert skills and cunning
to solve difficult clues...(but we all like to think we can, so we try.
That's human nature)... so, the disclaimer you claim absolves you from
responsibility, (in my opinion) does not.

The "hunt" is not why I enjoy letterboxing. To me it's just an excuse to
see a park or a Forrest or a historical place I never knew about, and
hopefully be surprised by it's beauty, and maybe learn some things too. I'm
glad you've sent us to such wonderful places. I love your clues and
stories. I just don't agree with your reasoning here. (that's my opinion)

My only assertion is that we all can be responsible... Have fun, learn,
protect and see nature at it's best.
(that's all I have to say about that)

Cheers,
Richard

BTW: I got the subtlety about the bikers the first time...it still didn't
help (LOL)

Richard,

Perhaps you missed it, but we are on a one post per "debate"
limit. You stated your peace earlier, and I responded to it :-)

(Or does this rule only apply to the points that Randy Hall and
Eric Mings wish to make on this list :-))

It obviously does not apply to the zillions of posts made
promoting a particular letterboxing web site, which, though
they did not interest me, I chose to "let go".

It obviously does not apply to the zillions of off-topic posts
related to "bear guard", which, though important to hikers and
others in bear country, don't interest me on this list as more
authoritative and scientifically valid information is available
elsewhere. Where is my credit for "letting that go"? :-)

It obviously does not apply to the zillions of hiking-related
posts of "what is in my pack"? I am a trail runner, not a hiker,
so while that information may be of interest to hikers, trail
runners who hunt letterboxes dress and equip themselves as
trail runners, and get the information of how to do so from
the appropriate places, not letterboxing talk lists, and the
"what is in my pack" thread holds no interest to such
letterboxers, though I chose to "let it go".

Turns out I happen to believe in open discussion and debate
if the connection with letterboxing is traceable, even if it
does not interest everyone, so these threads did not bother me
in the least. But if we want to have different rules, _everyone_
should follow them -- a variance is not granted for those who
wish to debate the value of -- or whine about the letterboxes I
have placed in more than one post.

Now, just on principle, I'm going to hammer my point on
letterboxing/environment, because I refuse to be bound to a one
post limit on a topic that interests me --

"It doesn't matter whether or not you think your activities are
hurting the environment. It doesn't matter whether or not you
think it is littering. Most everyone on this list agrees with
you. It matters what the outside thinks, particularly editorial
writers and park people."

There, I'm satisfied. Flame me for breaking the rule :-) and better
yet put me in your kill file ...

Finally, I am burnt out on people whining about my letterboxes.
I place them freely for people to enjoy if they _choose_ to. I
am sorry that people are not enjoying them. On July 30th, they
will be pulled from my web site -- if you ever feel you will wish
to hunt them, print out a copy now. The clues, including any new
ones I write, will remain available off-line to those who know
how to get them. Note that they will be cached in google for a
little longer, but reproducing them elsewhere is a copyright
violation (its a copyright violation on google also, but that is
another kettle of fish altogether).

Now, I'm sure I'll be accused of being childish for doing this
from some other quarters :-) You just cannot win. Turns out that
I do not have the skill, talent, or interest to write the clues
that people are demanding, its that simple. There are plenty of
other letterbox clues that are different from mine. As I am
giving to the end of the month for those with the interest, it
demonstrates that it is not a childish move. I've been considering it
for quite some time. (I guess calling them something other than
letterboxes did not work, what if I called them "writing samples"
would that have worked? :-))

FWIW, I've found over 100 letterboxes, including one with 6 distinct
errors in the clues, and failed to find about 30 others. I have
never whined about a single one. Woo Hoo :-)

Susan wrote the other day:
> Never be afraid to air your opinion or make a contribution - all we
> ask is a spirit of curiosity, contribution and politeness.

Did my posts on letterboxing/environment violate this ethic, or does
this ethic not apply to Randy Hall and Eric Mings?

Oh well, I have politely stated my peace on _this_ thread :-)

Cheers

Richard,

Perhaps you missed it, but we are on a one post per "debate"
limit. You stated your peace earlier, and I responded to it :-)

(Or does this rule only apply to the points that Randy Hall and
Eric Mings wish to make on this list :-))

It obviously does not apply to the zillions of posts made
promoting a particular letterboxing web site, which, though
they did not interest me, I chose to "let go".

It obviously does not apply to the zillions of off-topic posts
related to "bear guard", which, though important to hikers and
others in bear country, don't interest me on this list as more
authoritative and scientifically valid information is available
elsewhere. Where is my credit for "letting that go"? :-)

It obviously does not apply to the zillions of hiking-related
posts of "what is in my pack"? I am a trail runner, not a hiker,
so while that information may be of interest to hikers, trail
runners who hunt letterboxes dress and equip themselves as
trail runners, and get the information of how to do so from
the appropriate places, not letterboxing talk lists, and the
"what is in my pack" thread holds no interest to such
letterboxers, though I chose to "let it go".

Turns out I happen to believe in open discussion and debate
if the connection with letterboxing is traceable, even if it
does not interest everyone, so these threads did not bother me
in the least. But if we want to have different rules, _everyone_
should follow them -- a variance is not granted for those who
wish to debate the value of -- or whine about -- the letterboxes I
have placed in more than one post.

Now, just on principle, I'm going to hammer my point on
letterboxing/environment, because I refuse to be bound to a one
post limit on a topic that interests me --

"It doesn't matter whether or not you think your activities are
hurting the environment. It doesn't matter whether or not you
think it is littering. Most everyone on this list agrees with
you. It matters what the outside thinks, particularly editorial
writers and park people."

There, I'm satisfied. Flame me for breaking the rule :-) and better
yet put me in your kill file ...

Finally, I am burnt out on people whining about my letterboxes.
I place them freely for people to enjoy if they _choose_ to. I
am sorry that people are not enjoying them. On July 30th, they
will be pulled from my web site -- if you ever feel you will wish
to hunt them, print out a copy now. The clues, including any new
ones I write, will remain available off-line to those who know
how to get them. Note that they will be cached in google for a
little longer, but reproducing them elsewhere is a copyright
violation (its a copyright violation on google also, but that is
another kettle of fish altogether).

Now, I'm sure I'll be accused of being childish for doing this
from some other quarters :-) You just cannot win. Turns out that
I do not have the skill, talent, or interest to write the clues
that people are demanding, its that simple. There are plenty of
other letterbox clues that are different from mine. As I am
giving to the end of the month for those with the interest, it
demonstrates that it is not a childish move. I've been considering it
for quite some time. (I guess calling them something other than
letterboxes did not work, what if I called them "writing samples"
would that have worked? :-))

FWIW, I've found over 100 letterboxes, including one with 6 distinct
errors in the clues, and failed to find about 30 others. I have
never whined about a single one. Woo Hoo :-)

Susan wrote the other day:
> Never be afraid to air your opinion or make a contribution - all we
> ask is a spirit of curiosity, contribution and politeness.

Did my posts on letterboxing/environment violate this ethic, or does
this ethic not apply to Randy Hall and Eric Mings?

Oh well, I have politely stated my peace on _this_ thread :-)

Cheers

--- Judi wrote:
> Oh Randy-
> Say it ain't so!
. Meanwhile...my
> printer's humming.
>
I agree, boredom setting in, Mapsurfer clues scribbled
with notes, self-posed questions "could this be
here...?, these boxes are in essence the very core of
letterbox mysteries, they are what all mystery boxes
want to grow up to be!


Chip

=====
www.geocities.com/kancamangusdabull/HOME.html

You pick the place, I'll choose the time,
And I'll climb, that hill in my own way"

R. Waters

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Last summer a number of comments were made about GPS coordinates. I
am a converted Geocacher and an electronics nerd, so using a GPS is
second nature. I realize that not everyone is.

In several of my box clue sheets I tire of giving road by road
directions to a parking spot where I would like for the fun to
start. I have occasionally just given the coordinates and said that
this could be found with a GPS or by using the free topographic map
service www.topo.com. It seems the easiest way to let someone
actually know where they should park to eliminate parking from the
puzzle.

In none of these parking coordinate clues has a GPS been needed. The
coordinates are just a shorthand to get you to a map of the area. An
example is the "Rediscovery" box set I just posted.

Feedback? Who among you wants road by road directions to a parking
spot vs the coordinate clue?

Rick aka Flyfisher



--- In letterbox-usa@y..., Randy Hall wrote:
>
> > Very, very well put, especially for all the "new" letterboxers
out there and
> > even us "old" ones. We can learn from your comments.
>
> True, especially for certain styles of letterbox clues. There is
> much wisdom in that post.
>
> OTOH, for other styles, specific, obvious landmark detail and
> redundancy would compromise the challenge that the hunters of these
> sorts of boxes are attracted to. Not everyone is attracted to these
> sorts of boxes. Armchair treasure hunters are used to having to
deal
> with the fingerprints of towns, trails, roads, and other features,
and
> extracting subtlety from vague clues, and realise that things
change
> over time. I will be revisiting the disclaimer on my web page that
> says my boxes are hard and not for the easily disappointed. All of
my
> clues are listed with date planted so that those who are aware of
the
> way things change can factor that in. It is important to be aware
that
> things can change. The only constants are contour detail, large
rocks,
> and some streams and other water features.
>
> I'd call them "treasureboxes" if the term "letterbox" conjures up
> some image of the way things ought to be, to avoid confusion or
> having people be frustrated. If most of you feel my letterboxes
> don't fit the mold, as it were, its fine with me if the webmasters
> don't link to them.
>
> Just as the popularity of geocaching _has_ proven (at least to me),
> that GPS coordinates make acceptable clues for these sorts of
things,
> we may want to be open to _all_ sorts of clues, and ignore the ones
we
> don't like. I don't like geocaches in general so I ignore them.
> But they are still fair game for those who do enjoy them. This is
just
> one example. There is no (IMHO) "right" way to write a letterbox
> clue -- the hider does not owe the hunter a fun hunt, as there are
> too many hunters and you cannot write something that will please
> everyone. For my part, I will never intentionally write a clue
that
> knowingly involves trespass, hazards, has errors, or is
intentionally
> frustrating or unsolvable, but "hard" and "subtle" seem in the
spirit
> of treasure hunting to me. I will say, that based on off-list
> comments, that I believe you missed a key part of one of the boxes
you
> have alluded to that lead to a longer than expected hike. Moderate
> to difficult clues can often be easily misinterpreted. I've done
> it myself too many times to count. I was at the park last week, and
> the terrain has not changed from when I wrote that clue.
>
> > It's funny but the box's that have been placed in problem areas,
> > with vague clues and landmarks seem to be the ones that have no
> > stamps in them.
>
> I would actually expect this to be the case.
>
> Again, good, solid advice, but I don't think one-size-fits-all
> advice.
>
> Happy hunting and good luck :-)
>
> Cheers

Often before setting out, I look at the directions to the parking area
in a clue, and look at my atlas (I love the DeLorme Gazetter & Atlas
books) to see if there is an easier way for ME to reach the place. I
suppose with a little extra effort, I could look up coordinates on
Topo.com, then match up the place to my map. However, I would like at
least a brief description such as "roadside parking" or "parking lot"
so that I know what to expect & look for when I get there.

Aili

--- In letterbox-usa@y..., "geoflyfisher" wrote:
......
> Feedback? Who among you wants road by road directions to a parking
> spot vs the coordinate clue?
>
> Rick aka Flyfisher

I choose not to intermix Geocache clues with Letterbox clues.
I believe they are separate activities.
The fact that this group exists on the internet, is proof that all
here have access to it's many information sources.
I have found that if I look hard enough, I can find enough
information about where I intend to go before setting out, provided
the clues contain recognized names and locations. I also think
getting there is part of the fun.
Since we write 'clues' does that not make this a puzzle?
Bill

--- In letterbox-usa@y..., "geoflyfisher" wrote:
> Last summer a number of comments were made about GPS coordinates.
I
> am a converted Geocacher and an electronics nerd, so using a GPS is
> second nature. I realize that not everyone is.
>
> In several of my box clue sheets I tire of giving road by road
> directions to a parking spot where I would like for the fun to
> start. I have occasionally just given the coordinates and said
that
> this could be found with a GPS or by using the free topographic map
> service www.topo.com. It seems the easiest way to let someone
> actually know where they should park to eliminate parking from the
> puzzle.
>
> In none of these parking coordinate clues has a GPS been needed.
The
> coordinates are just a shorthand to get you to a map of the area.
An
> example is the "Rediscovery" box set I just posted.
>
> Feedback? Who among you wants road by road directions to a parking
> spot vs the coordinate clue?
>
> Rick aka Flyfisher
>
>
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@y..., Randy Hall wrote:
> >
> > > Very, very well put, especially for all the "new" letterboxers
> out there and
> > > even us "old" ones. We can learn from your comments.
> >
> > True, especially for certain styles of letterbox clues. There is
> > much wisdom in that post.
> >
> > OTOH, for other styles, specific, obvious landmark detail and
> > redundancy would compromise the challenge that the hunters of
these
> > sorts of boxes are attracted to. Not everyone is attracted to
these
> > sorts of boxes. Armchair treasure hunters are used to having to
> deal
> > with the fingerprints of towns, trails, roads, and other
features,
> and
> > extracting subtlety from vague clues, and realise that things
> change
> > over time. I will be revisiting the disclaimer on my web page
that
> > says my boxes are hard and not for the easily disappointed. All
of
> my
> > clues are listed with date planted so that those who are aware of
> the
> > way things change can factor that in. It is important to be
aware
> that
> > things can change. The only constants are contour detail, large
> rocks,
> > and some streams and other water features.
> >
> > I'd call them "treasureboxes" if the term "letterbox" conjures up
> > some image of the way things ought to be, to avoid confusion or
> > having people be frustrated. If most of you feel my letterboxes
> > don't fit the mold, as it were, its fine with me if the
webmasters
> > don't link to them.
> >
> > Just as the popularity of geocaching _has_ proven (at least to
me),
> > that GPS coordinates make acceptable clues for these sorts of
> things,
> > we may want to be open to _all_ sorts of clues, and ignore the
ones
> we
> > don't like. I don't like geocaches in general so I ignore them.
> > But they are still fair game for those who do enjoy them. This
is
> just
> > one example. There is no (IMHO) "right" way to write a letterbox
> > clue -- the hider does not owe the hunter a fun hunt, as there
are
> > too many hunters and you cannot write something that will please
> > everyone. For my part, I will never intentionally write a clue
> that
> > knowingly involves trespass, hazards, has errors, or is
> intentionally
> > frustrating or unsolvable, but "hard" and "subtle" seem in the
> spirit
> > of treasure hunting to me. I will say, that based on off-list
> > comments, that I believe you missed a key part of one of the
boxes
> you
> > have alluded to that lead to a longer than expected hike.
Moderate
> > to difficult clues can often be easily misinterpreted. I've done
> > it myself too many times to count. I was at the park last week,
and
> > the terrain has not changed from when I wrote that clue.
> >
> > > It's funny but the box's that have been placed in problem areas,
> > > with vague clues and landmarks seem to be the ones that have no
> > > stamps in them.
> >
> > I would actually expect this to be the case.
> >
> > Again, good, solid advice, but I don't think one-size-fits-all
> > advice.
> >
> > Happy hunting and good luck :-)
> >
> > Cheers

>
> In several of my box clue sheets I tire of giving road by road
> directions to a parking spot where I would like for the fun to
> start. I have occasionally just given the coordinates and said
that
> this could be found with a GPS or by using the free topographic map
> service www.topo.com. It seems the easiest way to let someone
> actually know where they should park to eliminate parking from the
> puzzle.
>


Hey, Rick. Gosh are you on a ROLL!!!
I think you can do your clues any way that works for you: I noticed
the coordinates to the recent parking area clue and thought it was
just fine. The challenge of finding the things is part of the
challenge!

Jay in CT