Dry Stone Walls

[+Teasel]

After the plastic bags thread last month, I thought I'd raise my own "pet hate" - caches in dry stone walls.

 

The rules/guidelines say they're not allowed, but even so there are still lots of caches which are in walls. So, should we get tough and insist that all offending caches be moved or archived, or should we be a bit more relaxed and wait until someone kicks up a fuss before taking each case individually?

 

Does it matter what state the dry stone wall is in? (When exactly does a "dry stone wall" become a "pile of stones" anyway?)

 

If a cache is not actually inside the wall, but the clue is such that people start dismantling the wall while looking for it, is that a case for action too?

 

Or is it just me?

[+Billy Twigger]

Caches in dry stone walls are bad news. Basically the only item that should go into a dry stone wall is a dry stone!

 

Although Micro caches by their very nature seem ideal for hiding behind a loose stone, they should never be hidden in the wall. It's not the hiding that's the problem, but the searching!

 

This is especially important in ruins. There are many riuned croft buildings in the north of Scotland that were left following the Highland Clearances and many of them remain as uninvestigated archeological treasures. These walls do, however, constitute excellent cache hiding opportunities. After all, taking fellow cachers to interesting places has to be a worthy aim.

 

So where a cache can be hidden at the base of the wall, under a UPS (Unrealistic Pile of Stones), then it should be ok. An unambiguous spoiler pic would help protect the wall too.

[+Eckington]

I can only add my on point of view on this, and I have to forward my coments with the reminder that we can only enforce (if that's the right word really) gc.com guidelines.

 

I think the dry stone wall is peculiarly a UK based guideline and we can only request that they be removed.

 

This we both do if we are told this is the case, and sometimes, especially if the cache listing is very long and involved, we can miss this piece of information.

 

If the cache page does not mention it we can not try to uphold it, unless the cache is reported to us, and then we mail the setter and/or add a log when temping or archiving the cache, asking the owner to get in touch with us and try to sort things out.

 

However, as this is a UK based guideline we can only expect regular reders of the fourms and regular visitors to the GAGB or GeocacheUK site to be aware of the guideline.

 

Ian, you know how many cachers there are registered in the UK at this time, I wonder how many of them read the forums?

 

It is a fact that sometmies it seems that the vast maority of the caches I review are from setters whose names I do not know, which in effect is those that do not regularly contribute to the forums. (Though I often mention the UK forum in my reply to try and engender interest).

 

To counter both the plastic bag issue, and the dry stone wall issue (and the rabbit hole issue (?)) the message has to reach more cachers than it does.

 

The question is how?

 

A note in a log when the cache is found might be the answer, and yet how often have I read posts about such logs being deleted, presumably because the cache owner may have erroneously believed them to be critical?

 

If we knew the answer we could act in a more proactive way........

 

Eckington

[+t.a.folk]

Get tough?Yes

Does it matter?Yes.

Case for action?Yes

Is it just you?No

[+Happy Humphrey]

Very good points. I've seen several excellent cache descriptions where the cache owner has mentioned that nothing needs to be dismantled, or no stones have to be moved to retrieve the cache. This is a great help where there is a suspicious cairn nearby, or a dry stone wall, or a likely-looking 10000-volt junction box with loose screws. Or even where the cache is under a natural pile of stones but there is an access hole at the back.

 

So if you find one that's not in a dry stone wall (or one of the other cases), but searching is likely to cause "collateral" damage to a nearby feature (or injury to the geocacher), send a message to the cache owner that there should be a mention of what NOT to dismantle. If they ignore it, after a month or so notify one of the approvers. I don't think you can do more than this as it's a matter of opinion whether any damage is likely to ensue from the cache placement.

 

If the cache is actually IN a wall, and stones in the wall have to be moved, have a look for a possible alternative spot when you're actually at the cache. Ideally, you'd realise that part of the wall has to be dismantled to get at the cache, leave it and post a DNF.

 

Then, contact the cache owner and suggest the alternative. If nothing happens after a month, do a "Needs Archived" log to alert the approvers.

 

It's not easy to define exactly what is a wall and what's a pile of stones, but in most cases it's fairly obvious that a wall is still viable. If the cache is in a viable wall but accessible without moving any stones (and this is clear in the description), I'd allow it to remain there.

 

HH

[Deego]

I did have two caches placed in dry stone walls (1 moved & 1 archived now ) They were placed in 2003 when I did not know any better. Although I did check them lots (favourite spots of mine ) I never saw any damage being done by cachers searching for the cache. But I know it can happen so I sorted them out.

 

The two photos were taken 18 months apart (30 logs) and the only things that have changed is the quality of the camera and the type of GPS. But I still agree with Teasel, it should not be done.

 

I will hang my head in shame.

 

 

[+t.a.folk]

I can only add my on point of view on this, and I have to forward my coments with the reminder that we can only enforce (if that's the right word really) gc.com guidelines.

 

I think the dry stone wall is peculiarly a UK based guideline and we can only request that they be removed.

 

This we both do if we are told this is the case, and sometimes, especially if the cache listing is very long and involved, we can miss this piece of information.

 

If the cache page does not mention it we can not try to uphold it, unless the cache is reported to us, and then we mail the setter and/or add a log when temping or archiving the cache, asking the owner to get in touch with us and try to sort things out.

 

However, as this is a UK based guideline we can only expect regular reders of the fourms and regular visitors to the GAGB or GeocacheUK site to be aware of the guideline.

 

Ian, you know how many cachers there are registered in the UK at this time, I wonder how many of them read the forums?

 

It is a fact that sometmies it seems that the vast maority of the caches I review are from setters whose names I do not know, which in effect is those that do not regularly contribute to the forums. (Though I often mention the UK forum in my reply to try and engender interest).

 

To counter both the plastic bag issue, and the dry stone wall issue (and the rabbit hole issue (?)) the message has to reach more cachers than it does.

 

The question is how?

 

A note in a log when the cache is found might be the answer, and yet how often have I read posts about such logs being deleted, presumably because the cache owner may have erroneously believed them to be critical?

 

If we knew the answer we could act in a more proactive way........

 

 

Perhaps someone oneday will have to take the can .

[+wildlifewriter]

To put some numbers on this, I just went over the 200-or-so physical caches that I've found - mostly in Ireland.

 

Of those two hundred, seven were hidden in, on, or right at the base of a DSW.

 

Of those seven...

 

* One was subsequently re-located by its owner.

* At least four were hidden before the guideline was introduced.

 

That leaves only two: One where the wall collapsed, and one where damage to the wall is evident.

 

Given that there are an awful lot of dry stone walls over here, it seems that there is a problem - but not a BIG problem.

 

-Wlw.

[SlytherinAlex]

Get tough?Yes

Does it matter?Yes.

Case for action?Yes

Is it just you?No

Ditto

 

-

[+Happy Humphrey]

Wlw,

 

At least four were hidden before the guideline was introduced

 

...there may have been no transgression by the cache setter, as there was no guideline then, but these can't be ignored as they are still in dry stone walls: whatever the history of the cache. So you've found 6 out of 200 which are potentially causing a vandalism problem. Rather a lot, really, considering that most caches don't have a nearby dry stone wall anyway!

 

Assuming that none of the cache owners is going to read this forum and sort out the errant placements, hopefully at least anyone who has been made aware of the issue will at least send a polite and discreet note to the cache owner when they encounter such situations.

 

HH

[Lactodorum]

To reiterate and support what Eckington has written, when we are made aware of a cache in a DSW we ALWAYS contact the owner to try and get it moved. The problem we have is that we rely on reports from responsible and knowledgeable cachers such as yourselves to find out about them.

 

There are sometimes "grey" areas such as is a pile of stone is an extant wall or just a pile of stones, or whether a wall is actually a DSW or of a type that won't be damaged by searching.

 

We try and keep things in check but we'll never succeed 100%

 

So if you come across an instance be sure to drop us a note so we can investigate.

[Alan White]

Just to broaden the debate a little, we've found many caches which are in what we regard as inappropriate places. We've found, or expected to find, caches half-way up cliffs, beyond a fence (especially where the fence is in disrepair), on obviously private land, and inside dangerous-looking structures, just to name a few that spring easily to mind.

 

We've always mentioned this to the owner, either in our log or by seperate mail. If nothing happens, and we feel sufficiently strongly about it, we'll mail the reviewers. Often things happen then. Sometimes the reviewers exercise their admirable judgement and decide to take no (visible) action. Whatever, we did our "job" by advising of the problem.

 

So let's not get hung up on DSW, rabbit holes, or anything else. There are good and bad places to hide a cache, and you can't have rules or guidelines for eveything. Common sense applies.

[Lactodorum]

.......you can't have rules or guidelines for eveything. Common sense applies.

Ahhhhhh!! Music to my ears

[+alma]

just to let you know that your message has got through to me .one ofmy caches was in a dry stone wall but i didnt know of the guidlines and i didnt think of the consequences of people moving and replacing the stones all the time.

a cacher who had done my cache let me know of this and replaced my cache in an appropriate spot i was a little upset at the time thinking how dare they relocate someone elses cache but i am now greatful and after seeing this thread i will be doing a maintainance check and if the spot is ok then i will leave it there.

so thank you for bringing this to our attention and your point has been acted on

[+t.a.folk]

Common sense applies.

 

Is everyones idea of what is common sense the same ?

Edited September 30, 2005 by t.a.folk

[+Stuey]

Common sense applies.

 

Is everyones idea of what is comon sense the same ?

I don't suppose it is. There's nothing wrong with a cache half way up a cliff if has the correct terrain rating and warnings are on the page, is there?

[+Gralorn]

Common sense is not so common !!

[+t.a.folk]

Is everyones idea of what is comon sense the same ?

 

don't suppose it is. There's nothing wrong with a cache half way up a cliff if has the correct terrain rating and warnings are on the page, is there?

 

I didn't have in mind things like caches halfway up or down cliffs !

 

I had in mind things like caches in or near dry stone walls ,caches placed near active animals holes ,caches wrapped in polythene on outside and intentional tresspass .

Why some cachers like to log accounts about their unintentional tresspasses is something I don't understand .

[+Moote]

Maybe someone could setup a CITO and get a group of us learning to repair a drystone wall

 

Milton (aka moote)

[+The Blorenges]

I can only add my on point of view on this, and I have to forward my coments with the reminder that we can only enforce (if that's the right word really) gc.com guidelines.

 

I think the dry stone wall is peculiarly a UK based guideline and we can only request that they be removed.....

However, as this is a UK based guideline we can only expect regular reders of the fourms and regular visitors to the GAGB or GeocacheUK site to be aware of the guideline.

To counter both the plastic bag issue, and the dry stone wall issue (and the rabbit hole issue (?)) the message has to reach more cachers than it does.

 

 

Right - Cards on the table...Have I any "common sense"? Plastic bags, dry stone walls, rabbit holes. I don't know if we, The Blorenges, are "newbies" or not - Are you "new" if you've only found about 70 caches? And hidden 10? Yes (compared to some) or No (compared to others. )

After just going away from this Forum and searching around for 10 minutes, I've now (for the first time) found the gagb.org.uk guidelines and read them...ah ha!...That's where it tells you about no polythene bags and not hiding caches in dry stone walls! Now...I've only become aware of these issues over the last couple of weeks since I've been looking at this Forum. I've learnt a lot of interesting things (including the properties of nutmeg) BUT we were not aware of these particular guidelines (the UK ones) when we placed our first caches. It would be so useful if there was some way that one could be automatically linked to these guidelines when submitting a new UK cache for consideration. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of new people assume that if they hide their cache somewhere along a public footpath then they don't need permission from anyone - that was certainly our original assumption...OK, we now know better!

Mrs B

[+Teasel]

Is everyones idea of what is comon sense the same ?

Clearly not. For example, if the encrypted clue reads "Top level of Dry stone wall (under two stones at most)", is that an inconsiderate cacher hiding a cache in a dry stone wall, or a considerate cacher preventing unnecessary damage by ensuring people don't dismantle the delicate base of the wall? Does it matter if the wall is sufficiently derelict already that it's useless for containing livestock, or should we be aiming to preserve toppled walls as a relic of the past? What does common sense say?

[+t.a.folk]

the encrypted clue reads "Top level of Dry stone wall (under two stones at most)

etc

 

When premium members download waypoints for caches how many cache details get downloaded ?

[+Happy Humphrey]

t.a.folk;

When premium members download waypoints for caches how many cache details get downloaded ?

All of them, including the hint and the latest few logs.

 

HH

Edited September 30, 2005 by Happy Humphrey

[+Happy Humphrey]

Alan White;

We've found, or expected to find, caches half-way up cliffs, beyond a fence (especially where the fence is in disrepair), on obviously private land

 

Let me refer you to my latest DNF;

 

Pacifica Steepest

 

...which was very enjoyable despite the ultimate failure!

 

But this has you climbing over a dodgy fence, down steep ground, crossing private land, and climbing a crumbling cliff face in view of disapproving residents (after swinging round a wooden barrier sited to try and prevent access to the most dangerous ground). The cache is (supposedly) halfway up the cliff face (somewhere in the vertical rubble).

 

Highly recommended nevertheless.

 

HH

Edited September 30, 2005 by Happy Humphrey

[+Yorkypudding]

Hi,

My first ever hidden cache was found by Teasel and it was in a dry stone wall and he soon sorted me out. We exchanged words and we are now owing each other drinks , me owing him one more than the other way round.

 

One thing for sure is that hes right, Im not thick and I regard the countryside I just thought it was ok at the time, mainly because I had found previous ones myself in dry stone walls.

 

Recently I went to do a cache in a dry stone wall which I have noticed is now archived and rightly so. The wall looked very weak around the area geocachers searched.

 

When are we having that drink Teasel.

 

Yorkypudding.

[nobby.nobbs]

ah rely on common sense if only that would work!!

 

My 5pence worth. better to just tottally avoid the dry stone wall to save any mistakes, rather than even say under a rock at the top.......which one? average accuracy +/- 5metres thats a large stretch of the wall to be lifting the stones up and putting back again.

 

We can't have rules and guidelines that bind us too tightly as they're only enforced by volunteers. Again when is a dry stone wall a pile of rubble? well if you don't go anywhere near them then you don't need to try and establish the cut off point...

 

There has to be somewhere near thats more suitable?

 

I'd like to think we can all agree that we have no excessive rules and very lienient approvers who try their best to resolve problems.

[Lactodorum]

...... BUT we were not aware of these particular guidelines (the UK ones) when we placed our first caches. It would be so useful if there was some way that one could be automatically linked to these guidelines when submitting a new UK cache for consideration.

...and you are not alone. I would guess that 95-99% of new cachers are unaware of the GAGB guidelines when placing their first cache. However I would have to tell you that there's virtually no possibility of an automatic link to them when submitting a new cache. For a system like that to work you would need similar links for all 200 odd countries. You would also need links for each region in each of those countries where differences to exist. You would also need similar organisations in each of those area, each one maintaining a set of guidelines.

 

Remember that the GAGB is a totally independent group of UK cachers and while supporting GC.com as the basis of the sport here, they are not controlled by GC.com and have no affiliation with them. As GC.com reviewers Eckington and I work closely with them and try to incorporate and include their guidelines when reviewing caches (not least because they are very good guidelines) but at the end of the day we are charged with upholding a single set of guidelines - those listed here.

 

Also remember that only a small proportion of cachers actually read/contribute to these forums.

 

At the end of the day, Eckington and I try to apply common sense to the review of caches in the UK.

[+The Blorenges]

 

At the end of the day, Eckington and I try to apply common sense to the review of caches in the UK.

....And, indeed, I'm sure that you both do this in an excellent and friendly manner. However, although I'm no computer geek, I would have thought that there would be somewhere in the exchange of information/checking of details/ sending "Your cache approved" email that one could be alerted automatically to the UK guidelines as an "extra" bit of information. For instance, when I received that automated email of approval (hopefully!) is there no way that you, or E, can attach an automatic extra sentence that says something like "Congratulations - now please have a look at our UK guidelines here...." or something? (You can tell I'm not into all the technical jargon, can't you? Mrs B

[+t.a.folk]

QUOTE 

When premium members download waypoints for caches how many cache details get downloaded ?

 

All of them, including the hint and the latest few logs.

 

HH

 

I asked because recently ,when caching, I chanced upon some "paperless " cachers . We all failed to find the cache but they asked to read my printout of cache details.

[+wildlifewriter]

(etc) I would guess that 95-99% of new cachers are unaware of the GAGB guidelines when placing their first cache. However I would have to tell you that there's virtually no possibility of an automatic link to them when submitting a new cache. For a system like that to work you would need similar links for all 200 odd countries.

I wonder if it would be as difficult as all that...

 

When the new cache info page is being completed, it already has some automated country-specific configuration - this triggers after the "Location" field has been selected.

 

I'm sure that it wouldn't be beyond gc.com's ingenuity to pop-up some additional info (or even just a link) at this point.

 

Worth asking about, perhaps.

 

-Wlw.

[+Haggis Hunter]

Does it matter if the wall is sufficiently derelict already that it's useless for containing livestock, or should we be aiming to preserve toppled walls as a relic of the past?  What does common sense say?

Yes it does matter, well to Dumfries & Galloway Forestry Commission it does.

I had met up with one of the managers from the ranger service, and we attempted a cache together. It had said in the description that the cache was not in the wall, but who always reads the description? I know that I don't.

 

Suffice to say, we were tempted to start pulling at rocks, which just so happened to be a very small line of stones, remnants of a very old wall. We decided to abort our search, and he subsequently asked for the cache to be archived, due to the co-ords pointing to the remains of the wall. The cache did get archived, it was also a holiday cache by an American.

 

I would hazard a guess that his feelings regarding walls would be the same all over the country. We should be promoting ourselves as responsible, these rules didn't get onto GAGB by accident. The reason they aren't on the GC.com guidelines, as I don't think the Americans would know what a dry stane wall is? They are unique to what is known as the Old World.

 

As for a link to the the GAGB guidelines, would it be possible for an additional note to be added to all new caches in the UK, with a link to the GAGB guidelines, pointing out that they are additional guidelines for the UK only?

[Lactodorum]

A few folks have made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that owners of all new caches that are published should get information about local guidelines.

 

However as I said earlier, to automate this process some sort of worldwide consensus would need to be reached on how to structure the underlying data and then it would need to be programmed. This just aint going to happen any time soon.

 

However, I would like to turn it round and suggest that concerned cachers and forum readers add such information to their logs when logging finds on new(ish) caches. Many cachers also embed links to the GAGB, GCUK, UK Forum and other complementary sites to their cache descriptions. That is an excellent way of informing new cachers of the existence of such things.

 

Maybe Eckington and I could send an e-mail to the owner of every new cache published but as there is no automatic way of doing it we would have to do it manually. I can assure you that we have enough to do without that added burden!

 

We'll stick to applying guidelines and common sense at the review stage.

[+wildlifewriter]

[Yes it does matter, well to Dumfries & Galloway Forestry Commission it does.

And I bet the the Forestry Commission - and all the other bodies who are party to caching agreements - are under the impression that cachers are being shown the guidelines about DSWs (and other things) in a proactive manner.

 

Perhaps it's time they were, as my suggestion above suggests.

 

-Wlw.

[Lactodorum]

[Yes it does matter, well to Dumfries & Galloway Forestry Commission it does.

And I bet the the Forestry Commission - and all the other bodies who are party to caching agreements - are under the impression that cachers are being shown the guidelines about DSWs (and other things) in a proactive manner.

 

Perhaps it's time they were, as my suggestion above suggests.

 

-Wlw.

Any cache on Forestry Commission land is treated as a "special" and an agreement document has to be signed and submitted for the landowner's approval prior to it being published. The owner has to agree to abide by the conditions printed on the form which specifically prohibits damage to walls (and animal runs for that matter).

 

So in this case your suggestion is being fully complied with.

[+wildlifewriter]

I stand corrected...

 

-Wlw.

[+t.a.folk]

Any cache on Forestry Commission land is treated as a "special"

 

That is if it is acknowledged that the cache is on Forestry Commssion managed land .

GCQA2C In a Spin(ney) is on New Forest Forestry Commssion managed land .

The cache details include an icon saying the cache is available 24/7 ,but the permissions agreement states that caches placed under the terms of the New Forest Permissions Agreement should NOT be be sought during the hours of darkness .

We have communicated with you( Lactodorum ) and GAGB commitee over this . The reply to our email was that it was not considered that the cache is placed on New Forest F.C. managed land .

We knew it was ,but phoned the relevant Forestry Commission office to double check before sending another email ,this time to a GAGB member ,reiterating that the cache is on F.C. managed land ,and land of a sensitive nature ,being heathland ,and not scrubland as described in reply to first email .

Still awaiting a reply to email to GAGB committee .

 

Many weeks later the cache in question still displays a 24/7 icon .

We could try communicating with the cache owner directly in this instance , except the reply to our first email highlighted a more fundamental problem of a lack of being able to recognise from afar what is New Forest Forestry Commission managed land and a subsequent rejection of local peoples knowledge .

 

 

edited for spelling

 

 

.

Edited October 1, 2005 by t.a.folk

[+Bill D (wwh)]

t.a.folk wrote:

Still awaiting a reply to email to GAGB committee .

 

The icon has now been removed from the cache page.

Edited October 1, 2005 by Bill D (wwh)

[+t.a.folk]

The icon has now been removed from the cache page.

 

Seems posting on here worked within hours where discreet emails hadn't after weeks ! ?

[+t.a.folk]

t.a.folk wrote:

Still awaiting a reply to email to GAGB committee . 

 

 

The icon has now been removed from the cache page.

 

 

Thankyou for the reply !

[+Teasel]

Maybe Eckington and I could send an e-mail to the owner of every new cache published but as there is no automatic way of doing it we would have to do it manually. I can assure you that we have enough to do without that added burden! 

If you would like to send me some suitably worded "welcome to UK cache ownership - here's what we do differently this side of the pond: pubs and bridges are ok; dry stone walls and SAMs are not ok; binliners are smelly... see this link for further details" blurb, I'll happily ensure that it gets sent to cachers within a day or three of them having their first UK cache approved.

[Lactodorum]

Maybe Eckington and I could send an e-mail to the owner of every new cache published but as there is no automatic way of doing it we would have to do it manually. I can assure you that we have enough to do without that added burden! 

If you would like to send me some suitably worded "welcome to UK cache ownership - here's what we do differently this side of the pond: pubs and bridges are ok; dry stone walls and SAMs are not ok; binliners are smelly... see this link for further details" blurb, I'll happily ensure that it gets sent to cachers within a day or three of them having their first UK cache approved.

That sounds like an excellent idea Ian, can you give me a few days to think about it as I'm starting to move house tomorrow so I'm a little pre-occupied at the moment!

 

I'll have a get together with Eckington and we'll try and put something together.

[+Moote]

dry stone walls and SAMs are not ok

Should you also include SSSI within this, these are probably of even greater importance as placing a cache can affect the ecology of these areas

 

Milton (aka moote)

 

P.S. Earthcaches on SSSI should be OK as long as people use there common sense when visiting and stick to defined routes

Edited October 2, 2005 by moote

[Lactodorum]

I think that Teasel's original point has been discussed sufficiently that a reasonable consensus has been reached. I'm now closing this thread but I think the "Introductory e-mail" idea deserves a new thread of its own.