FireRef

I have been thinking about this for a while, and am curious as to how people feel about this. I know NPS hides are prohibited (National Park Service), because they don't like the idea, and I also understand the history, such as concerns over buried caches, etc. However, it is this website which refuses to list them as well - not just the park service saying they won't allow them. Here is my question: Lets say I decide to go out and place a cache in NPS lands. (I don't actually live near any, and don't plan to anyway, but let's go hypothetical here). I hide a container somewhere on the property. I then come back, and find a website which will list that hide. People go and find it. Does the NPS actually go look for it? Do they try to prosecute me for hiding something which may be against their rules? (presuming its against an actual law, and they have the ability to press charges for it, and they have the interest in chasing after a few individuals who choose not to follow it) Have they done this in the past? Do they try to prosecute the website which listed the cache? Is this even legal? I mean, to be allowed to go after a website for listing a set of coordinates which a person is legally allowed to go to, along with other information about that location? Would this make a difference if it was a virtual cache? Can an entity with public property, with public access allowed, legally or ethically say "We don't want you pointing out locations for people to go in our area?" Should this, or any website, respect this, whether they agree with it or not? It just seems to me, in my opinion (which doesn't always count for much), that over the 10 years this game or sport has been in existence, they have decided to respect groups which say "you can come on our property as a citizen, but you can't play this specific game here". Are they going to make rules against having a picnic on a site, if a website opens listing great picnic grounds, and then that site will have to remove locations for good picnics? I use this example because people going out picnicing probably have a better chance of leaving things behind doing damage to the environment than our game. I am in no way advocating breaking the rules on this website. I am simply looking to have a discussion on why this site has chosen to say no hides in places that land managers have contacted them saying they don't like it, rather than simply stating "Thanks. We are aware of your concerns. The hiders are responsible for their hides (as the website rules state), and if they place them there, and you don't like them, you are welcome to ask the person to remove them. We, on the other hand, only list what we are given (as the website rules state), and are not responsible for the hides themselves. Feel free to contact the owner of the container and ask that it be removed." In the years that this website has been around, being nice to the land managers such as NPS has gained nothing - we still aren't allowed by NPS to place caches, and because of that, this website still won't list them. It hasn't caused them to change their rules. Some parks are now open to them. Some require a permit. That's fine - however, what if you put one out without a permit? Same thing applies as above - the site isn't responsible, as they state in their rules - the owner of the cache is. Why is the site taking the position of enforcer for the various land management groups?

Not true. Anyone can report a cache listing on opencaching.com as being in violation of their guidelines. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of removing listings for caches that violate the guidelines. Now they don't have a specific guideline about distance from a railroad track. Their guidelines do say that caches should not be place where there presence may set off alarms, and railroad tracks are given as an example. Also private property placements always require explicit permission, so if the cache is on railroad property and not in the park it is likely in violation of the guidelines. And they have a guideline not to put caches anywhere that might put the safety of geocachers in peril. So it is hard to say if this cache would meet the opencaching.com guidelines or not. It would probably be cachers who actually visit the cache who will determine if this in the city park and a safe distance from the railroad tracks, rather than a reviewer using a poorly drawn city map and an inconclusive YouTube video. But you have to admit that it will make this a very interesting debate over time - here, you submit a cache, hoping that it meets the website's standards, as well as the individual reviewer's (because some seem to let some things go or interpret guidelines differently than others), where there, you submit a cache, and it is posted... all you have to do is hope the website doesn't decide, based on complaints, that your cache violates their guidelines. They seem more reactive than proactive. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes bad. But I do think, and have expressed this before, that this website is a bit too proactive. Prohibiting hides which don't meet guidelines set up and enforced by the person who owns the company doesn't always benefit the game, as much as it protects the website and the person who owns it. I would prefer having a site which is there for the benefit of the game. Will opencaching.com be it? Who knows. But competition is good - always.

In line with your reasoning, as has already been discussed here several times over, mystery, multi, virtual, and webcam caches should all go the way of the dodo as well. Because all have some level of ALRs involved with them. So no. Let's move away from the same point that we have continuously successfully rebutted. Find something else to complain about now. Or complain about all of those cache types as well. You know, for consistency. Any cache that has ALR's, according to the guidelines, had to be changed or archived. Except for these challenge caches. Grandfathering Webcams and Virtuals is inconsistent as well. As much as I like them, to be consistent, they should be gone. Earthcaches were definitely an exception which was inconsistent - virtuals with an educational point were permitted, but only if it was a geological phenomenon. I don't see any tie-ins with multi's or mysteries. If they don't have ALR's, they don't violate the consistency. And - to finish with your comment about successfully rebutting my points previously - If this is true, and all of the points for removing challenge caches have been successfully rebutted, why is this thread still open? Guess they haven't.

Nice cache... Anyone want to take bets on when the cache police are going to come out and b*tch that it was... *gasp* somehow or another placed under the surface of the ground? When they do, just point out that it is "buried" in pine needles. Based on the discussion in another thread, this definitely does not fit the guidelines. As much as I think this is a great hide, and have no problem with it personally, there is no way the pine needles extend a foot below the surface of the ground. As cool as it is, by the guidelines, it isn't allowed.

Challenge caches are simply another example of the exceptions made to rules (sorry, guidelines) in this game. ALR's were banned. Challenge caches were allowed as an exception. The guidelines, without the exception, would not allow them. So in the interest of consistency, they should go away.

Hmmm - assuming that someone who has a job knows what they are doing? You really need to look further into this. How many people are appointed to jobs that have no other qualifications than knowing someone. That's it. And it happens all the time. As for the NPS, they didn't make the rule for Groundspeak. Groundspeak made the rule for the game, in deference to NPS. Every location has rules for their area... why can't places that prohibit buried caches be the same as places that require permits. You follow the rules for that area. Don't make a general rule for everywhere, if it only applies to some places. Gamelands in PA require you to wear blaze orange when entering them. So why don't we have a rule that anytime we go cache hunting in the woods - no, wait... why not have a rule that says ANYTIME you go hunting a cache, you must wear blaze orange? If I wanted to place a cache in my front yard, and I wanted to bury it, there should be no rule prohibiting it. I know I gave myself permission to do so, therefore why should it be violating any general rule.

Actually, unless you are hunting or trapping, you are prohibited from entering the gamelands between Nov 15 and Dec 15. I'm not sure of the dates, but it is definitely in the rules - it was discussed in another thread.

I do - I can come up with many... That's not the point. No one person...no one problem... no one issue should make a rule that affects everyone. In NFHS (National Federation of High Schools) Basketball rules, you are permitted to use instant replay to determine the outcome of a basket in a game. Oh wait... it can only be in the state championship game, and only to determine if a made basket shot at the buzzer left the shooters hands before the clock hit zero and the buzzer sounded... oh, and only if it determines the outcome of the game. Can you imagine what it would be like if we had rules every time someone didn't like the outcome of a basketball game? The rule book would be bigger than the Library of Congress. And you could expand this to any sport, or any game for that matter. You don't make a rule because of one mistake. One mistake - well, honestly, can we say it was a mistake? Do we know what this cache looked like? What damage it did to the environment? No. Nothing was posted about this... I welcome any information on this. Simply saying the damage it caused was because the land managers decided they didn't like the game isn't enough for me - misunderstandings can be corrected. And not by kowtowing to every demand of a person or group. Often times, they overreact. Look at the places we aren't even allowed to walk off trail... try to keep the wild animals on the trails and see what happens. I know we aren't wild animals, but if they feel they need to restrict FOOT traffic through an area, they need to be worried about bigger things. And just because they are in charge of "our" land, doesn't mean they make the right decisions. It just means they have the power... power is a dangerous thing. This is a good game. This is a good way to interact with the environment. I think that if we wait a little while, we will have more people actually realizing this, rather than being afraid of it. In education, the internet was a horrible thing, until the people in charge got used to it. Now, it's used all the time. Same with cell phones - at first, schools prohibited them for kids because they were so terrible for kids to have in school. Now, some are starting to realize that they are part of life, and the kids need to be educated in good uses of them, as well as being able to use them under certain circumstances. I'm sorry - I don't feel I'm missing the point. I think the rule is the thing missing the point. My point is: deal with the problems - don't make rules which impair progress in the game because of single issues.

My observation is that the OP tends to exaggerate. I am, however, aware of one cache recently archived by our local reviewer when he came across it while geocaching. GC1NXP8 was the first cache placed by a local reasonably experienced cacher. Note the picture that shows method of placement. After it was archived, the CO placed it nearby in an acceptable manner and re-listed it. As has been stated over and over the reviewer had no way of knowing how this was placed unless it were reported or, as in this case, he came across it himself. No slippery slope about it. For much of this game, the ultimate enforcers of the rules are us. The reviewers will make things right when they know about infractions but the first assumption of TPTB is that we are, and will act like, responsible individuals. And the sad thing is that this is actually a very nice hide. Rules aside. Creative, well disguised, well protected. And exactly how much damage was done to the environment by placing it? This is a good example why this guideline is not a good thing for geocaching.

Slippery slope arguments are really not legitimate because they only happen some of the time. We can't do it because of what "might" happen? I think the biggest problem with these rule/guidelines/whatever were calling this list of things is that they are inconsistently enforced. If every sprinklerhead cache is not allowed because it is partially buried, then why are the reviewers and gs.com not archiving every one of them immediately? If permission is such a big deal, why is every cache for which written permission is not presented not archived immediately? And why, if these guidelines are so important to follow, are exceptions made? You can't have a guideline if it is blurry. My favorite example of this is the NBA and the rules of basketball. The refs don't follow the rules - you almost never see a travel called, even though it isn't allowed in basketball at any level (and no, the rule for this isn't different in the NBA - ive checked). It isn't called because it doesn't make a good game for the people who are paying to see it. So the game is played and reffed outside the rules because people want it that way. But if you want to see real basketball, at least according to the rules and the way the game was intended by those writing them, watch college basketball. This site allows people to play only by their rules. Whether we agree or not, we're expected to follow them. Right or wrong (in each of our own opinions), we're expected to follow them. And going somewhere else isn't an option right now, because this site has the largest database. I just think they should do two things: 1) Not be as worried about what "might" happen. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but I'm not staying in my house 24/7 because I might get killed outside. 2) Be more consistent in the enforcement of the cache placement guidelines. Agree or disagree, the worst rules are the ones that are inconsistently enforced. Have a rule, enforce it, or get rid of it. This policy of enforcing the ones they want to only when they want to leaves too much room for bias.

This was not intended as a personal attack. It is a response by me to the fact that a decision was made to try to make some people happy - not the people who play the game, but a very few who "control" lands we as the public own. It really seems silly to me for someone to say "Here's this really big area of public land...but you can't go there. You can't do anything with it. You can't even walk through it if you want." Our PA Gamelands are a prime example. We can't go in them for a month unless we are hunting. I do feel it would be stupid to wander around in there with a bunch of people looking for something to shoot, but to legislate that we can't, that just doesn't make sense to me. Of course, we live in a state with a basically unenforceable seatbelt law, but allow motorcyclists to ride around without a helmet. Makes perfect sense when you put them together. I just don't think it makes sense to make a rule to make a few people happy. Especially when it really hasn't changed their willingness to put caches in these lands in a major way. I apologise if I offended you - that was not my intent. I take exception to the rule, not to your explanation. I don't agree that the explanation justifies the decision - that's all. In what I do, you don't make a rule to deal with several people or several problems - you deal with those on a case by case basis. You make rules and guidelines to cover large numbers of people who would violate it. Upsetting a few land managers doesn't really seem to be enough to make a general rule. To me, anyway.

A rent a cop who has no authority if you are not doing anything illegal? Seriously - every time there is a thread here about cache police, people get irritated. If it is a serious guidelines violation, we are expected to turn it in with a NA log. Some people will - some won't. Some of the best caches I have done (as in found) may have had guidelines violations involved.

But both would appear to be a big problem. I think we need to consider, on the other side of things, that in many cases, these land managers are managing "our" land. They are paid by our taxes, and are keeping this land in good shape for... um, last time I checked, our use. Problem is we, as a country (and I'm referrring to the US since that's the area I live in) have allowed these land management agencies to consider certain areas off limits, place limits on the areas we can use (to the point of not even allowing hiking "off-trail" in some places), and so forth. I also find it interesting that the website has worked so hard to get physical caches in these places, and that they haven't allowed virtuals (which are supposedly coming back sometime here... ) to be placed because it is, according to the website, an easy excuse to not allowing a container to be placed. We can "bury" a cache in a pile of sticks (pretty temporary in the grand scheme of things) or a pile of rocks (more permanent in the grand scheme of things), but not in a small amount of earth. I disagree with this. Saying that this rule is simply because land managers don't like it is not appropriate. We have a game. We make our rules. We follow our rules... sorry, guidelines... oh, and we don't follow them that well. As has been said in this thread, some of the best caches people have found were buried in some way. Not in such a way that people needed to dig for them - only that an appropriate space to place a cache was hollowed out. Did the person disturb the earth? Yes. Did they possibly disturb a plant or two? Possibly. Do we do this every time we go out and geocache? Yes - in some way or other... walk across grass? Step on a plant? Yes. Do animals do this ALL THE TIME? Absolutely. Since when has it been a major problem for a dog to dig a hole to bury something? We need to stop putting ourselves above the animals that inhabit the Earth with us. Maybe some of my arguments aren't as solid as others, but there really is no legitimate reason, in my opinion, to have a general rule like this because some land managers just don't like it.

Not bad - few minor inconsistencies... I really wish newspaper writers would ask their source about the final copy of the article before it is published. Not just for geocaching - but for just about anything. They always manage to get some details wrong that could have been avoided by asking their source to read the final article before publication.

This was the point I was trying to make a lot of times in the past. We have rules, I mean guidelines, which are open to interpretation only by those in charge. We have a lot of people who choose to ignore or interpret the guidelines differently from those in charge of this website. We have a lot of caches out there that don't meet the guidelines. However, since it is only addressed when someone complains, many hides are out there that don't have permission. Many hides are out there that are not hidden correctly if you interpret the rules the way the website chooses to. One of the best caches I found early on was a bison tube hidden in a hollowed out part of a tree - done in a way that wouldn't harm the tree long term (I am a biology major), and with magnets on the bark that covered the hole and sunk into the tree so the bark stayed there. I thought it was amazingly creative. By the rules here, it isn't allowed. I think that is a loss for the game. But the biggest problem is the lack of consistency in the enforcement of the guidelines. I know life isn't fair. However, when you see people with hides who are clearly skirting the rules, but it is very poorly looked on to blow the whistle on these ("cache police" are always looked down on, except for by a very few), it causes a lot of problems. Therefore, the caches continue to be put out, continue to be approved, and continue to be found by people who get a view of the game far different from what the actual guidelines/rules want us to believe. Compound this by the general excuse that no cache placement should be considered a prerequisite that that kind of hide is allowed, and we get mixed messages. This person did it, why can't I? This person put one out here, why can't I. This location had a cache for years just like the one I want to hide, why is mine getting rejected. Because they can. I think this is one of the biggest problems with this game. Not necessarily this website - they choose their rules and we're stuck following them if we want to list things here. I just wish that they were more consistently and regularly enforced. It would make the rules/guidelines a lot easier to follow and know what we can and can't do.

This was interesting to read through - can someone post the original text of the cache page so we can compare it to what's up there now? I think the OP is a little overboard on this one.

My sentiments exactly - if you don't like them, don't hunt them. I don't expect people to get rid of the 5/5 hides near me because I don't plan to hunt them or don't want to go get scuba or climbing gear. Don't begrudge people who want to hunt simple ones that ability. PS - I'll hunt anything that looks interesting to me, including LPC's.

I think a lot of this boils down to Groundspeak has the market cornered right now. No other site has developed the cache database or tools to access this database that will draw the number of people to their site that GS has right now. I do know they have worked hard to promote the sport by making sure there are policies and procedures and review process steps and rules (sorry, guidelines) that in some cases are made clear, and in some cases are not as clear. These things have greatly benefited the game. However, they have also done these things to protect their database (which is full of data from the users, not them), and to protect themselves legally. Not that I have a problem with this, just that it doesn't benefit the game or the users as much as it protects them. These other sites - maybe less rules, maybe less users, maybe less caches. Problem is that, regardless of what happens with these sites, when the second and third ones go up, I'm sure the first one will. Welcome to today's world. The game becomes less important than the legal issues involved. I guess that's just the way it is/has to be. I am curious - what site is supposed to get shut down if they don't follow their own rules? I know T-caching is going down, but that seemed more related to the owner deciding not to continue to support it.

I am assuming, based on having read a number of other threads, as soon as the topic of pathtags comes up, the topic is closed. The purpose behind this thread is to ask the simple question "Why does Groundspeak have such a problem with discussing pathtags?" I welcome a moderator to answer this question clearly and directly, and close the thread if they have done so. Historically, clear and direct answers are rarely offered. Also, other sites, such as GSAK.net, and wooden nickel sites, have not been censored unless they became ads. Also, sites which violate terms of service (such as the one which promotes an android program which I won't mention since I know it will get removed/locked, and may interfere with my quest to get a legitimate answer to my legitimate question above) are censored for obvious reasons (violation of said terms of service). Sites such as "wheresgeorge.com" haven't come up recently, but as I remember it, WG.com had more of a problem with geocaching than the opposite, since it interfered with the way they wanted money to circulate for their tracking service. I know that GS.com controls these forums. I know it makes sense to go to the website that the specific topic or business hosts. However, as the title of this forum suggests, "General Geocaching Discussions", discussing them on here makes sense, since they are topics of concern to geocachers, and are related to geocaching. What's the major issue here? (I originally was going to post this in the geocoin discussion group, but since they are not geocoins, and the question relates more to the website's choice to censor discussions related to geocaching, rather than to geocoins, this location seemed more appropriate.)

Does anyone realize that there is no requirement to make interesting, wordy logs for any cache? That seems to have gotten lost in this. If you put a cache out, you are asking people to go find it. If they do, it has served its purpose. If they choose to log it online, even better. If they make a wordy, interesting log, even better. But none of this is required, or even should be expected. Everyone keeps complaining about getting TFTC logs. I get some - I don't complain. I'm happy someone took the time to find my cache, and then let me know that they actually found it. Do I like the more detailed logs? Sure. Do I expect them? No. Can I expect them? No. People need to stop putting their expectations on other people. It makes life a lot simpler. I will note that I usually write a little story with mine, but that is more for me to be able to go back and see where I was, what I was doing, and what happened during that cache hunt. Great for the owner, but not required, necessary, or expected.

If it appears that they are active, based on looking at the recent logs, I might wait. Otherwise, I'll log the find, along with sending the email (and indicate this in my log), and then they can delete it if they want). On a side note, depending on what GS does with bringing back virtuals (Planned, but no info yet, according to the website), this may become a little hotter topic when it happens.

I think that a lot of people seem to forget that ALR's were removed. Asking people to give a nice log is perfectly fine. Berating or insulting them if they choose not to is not. You're not required to post anything. Originally, the log would have been in the container anyway, and the written paragraph would have been placed there. I put some caches out that took a lot of time and effort, and had large log books - I had hoped for them to write stories in them - even asked them to do so. However, some people did, and some people didn't. Was I disappointed? Maybe a little. Can I delete their logs for having not followed my request? No. That would be wrong. My opinion: If you want to hide a cache, go ahead. But don't expect people to do anything other than the required "finding" of it. And no cache is lame. Some are more interesting than others. But again, we shouldn't be insulting people's placement of caches. I happen to like a LPC or guardrail find or three in between the occasional exciting cache I find. I have placed both kinds. I really hate it when people complain about caches as being lame. If you don't like them, don't look for them. Its really that simple.

I actually was told once that I was by a land owner. I was looking for a cache along the side of a public road, which butted up against the fence for an interstate. There was about a 6 foot buffer zone there, and it was pretty much at the end of the road. A truck came down the road, turned into the driveway, stopped, and the person got out and walked over to me. I talked to him about what I was doing and was told, politely, that it was private property. I explained about the buffer, and the fact that it was a public road, and he told me that he actually owned the road. At this point, I apologised, and left. Interesting how the map showed it as a public road, about a quarter mile long, with several houses along it. Oh well...

I agree with the OP, and have been banned before for complaining about how the site works and how it is moderated. I don't agree with some aspects of this site, but for now, they have the most people and best list of caches and the best access to them. I do feel they should be filtering the following things, which they do pretty well: 1) Filtering things which have nothing to do with the sport/game of geocaching. As mentioned in an earlier post, prices of eggs, best mechanics, etc. This, they do well. (Yes, praise for the site from me ) 2) Filtering things which violate the TOS. This makes sense... you can't support something that is against your rules. Certain Android apps come to mind. 3) Language and inappropriate references - and again, they do a very good job of this. It is a family friendly site, and would definitely not be if this wasn't covered. Following are things which I don't feel they should filter at all, keeping in mind that this particular forum (the one I am posting in), is listed as "General Geocaching Discussions/Geocaching Topics", not Groundspeak only geocaching discussions. 1) Discussion of other caching websites and their advantages/disadvantages. I think this would benefit both Groundspeak as a company and geocaching.com as a website to know what people think of various good/bad things about this site in comparison to others. 2) Discussion of competing materials such as pathtags, etc. There are advantages and disadvantages to these and other outside competing materials, as related to this website, and this again can only benefit this website when people can discuss what they like/don't like about these and other materials. I understand this website is a business. I understand it won't run without an income and things which threaten this income are considered bad. I also would like to note that it seems that GS has listened to its users more than in the past. However, I always like to compare this website and its method of running to Apple. There, Steve Jobs makes the rules, and you live with it. Here, Jeremy makes the rules, and you live with it. In both cases, they have a product or set of products that a lot of people really like and desire, and if you like them enough to live with the things you don't like about them (and in some cases, can't change, and in other cases, to change, you have to break the rules lol), you get them. If you don't, you can complain, or you can go to someone elses' products. Good? Bad? You have to decide for yourself.

Honestly, I think this is silly. They are very unlikely to do anything except look at a map for a short time (maybe a minute or two, if they're not familiar with their park - if they are, even less), and decide if there is anything sensitive near there to disapprove the cache for. Otherwise, they would approve it and collect their $25 for a few cents of the work they are already being paid to do. Next thing you know, we'll be charged to walk through the park, more based on specific locations. There has been talk for years of a fee to be charged for the use of PI state park near me. Nothing has ever been done about it, and if it was, it probably would lose most of its visitors. Dumb idea, folks.