Stone Wall Caches

January 11, 2006

I don't read the forum posts every day so I'm not sure that anyone has discussed this topic before (I'm sure someone will tell me if they have). As a local New England history aficionado, I'd like to make a personal appeal that cachers not place caches in, on or near historical stone walls. If you're not familiar with this New England (and other place) phenomenon, New England is crisscrossed by literally thousands of miles of stone walls. Part of the legacy of being in a glacial area. Many of these walls are hundreds of years old and many of them are located in very remote areas where there is little other evidence of mans presence. Placing caches in or near these walls, while seemingly very convenient, invites searchers to inadvertently damage or destroy sections of these walls. It is very tempting to disturb the stones looking for the cache and it is very difficult to then replace the stones in exactly the same way. Perhaps the most destructive situation occurs then the cache is not in, but is near a wall and the cache goes missing. The actions of frustrated searchers can ultimately destroy a wall that may have stood since colonial times. Not only is this a tragedy, it may even be illegal. It is in many Rhode Island communities. If you must hide a cache near a stone wall, please place a prominent disclaimer in your cache description that the cache is not in the wall.

Edited January 11, 2006 by KelticFrog

1.3k · January 11, 2006

Placing a cache IN a stone wall is definitely a bad idea and I have seen that discussed in a recent thread. I think your idea of a disclaimer for caches placed NEAR stone walls is a good one.

January 11, 2006

...it is very difficult to then replace the stones in exactly the same way.

I find the case you are making to be quite silly indeed. Is it really a problem that a couple of stones have been shifted in a stone wall out in the middle of the woods that no human being would ever notice? This is hardly a cause for concern and hardly worthy of even a passing thought.

Hobbyists (in any hobby) tend to create superfluous, self-defeating "rules and regulations" when they are too deepy entrenched. This is clearly one of them.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Skadar

January 11, 2006

...it is very difficult to then replace the stones in exactly the same way.

I find the case you are making to be quite silly indeed. Is it really a problem that a couple of stones have been shifted in a stone wall out in the middle of the woods that no human being would ever notice? This is hardly a cause for concern and hardly worthy of even a passing thought.

Hobbyists (in any hobby) tend to create superfluous, self-defeating "rules and regulations" when they are too deepy entrenched. This is clearly one of them.

Move a stone two inches every day and see how far away it gets from it's original spot. Did you notice that part about this being illegal in some places? I have not seen these stone walls, having never been to New England. I hope, however, that if I ever get out there they won't all be destroyed by someone who doesn't relize how special they are.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Cannonlaw

January 11, 2006

Is it really a problem that a couple of stones have been shifted in a stone wall out in the middle of the woods that no human being would ever notice?

So the NEW criteria on responsibility is based upon how many people witness the irresponsibility?

I guess it's okay to dump all my trash in the woods, because few people will see it. Heck, maybe next time I change my oil, I'll pour it into one of your nearby creeks, because few people will notice.

January 11, 2006

I guess it's okay to dump all my trash in the woods, because few people will see it. Heck, maybe next time I change my oil, I'll pour it into one of your nearby creeks, because few people will notice.

Apples and Oranges.

Moving a couple stones doesn't pollute the environment like dumping trash or oil.

18.9k · January 11, 2006

Thousands of miles of stone walls crisscrossing remote areas and your telling me that each and every stone is historical and precious??

Not that I would like to see them destroyed or anything but I think one could find a suitable location and method that would both perserve the wall and allow for a hide - somewhere in the thousands of miles.

Of course avoid the places where they are perserved and it is illegal but to paint the broad stroke that ALL walls in all locations in all circumstances should be avoided is overkill - IMHO.

January 11, 2006

Cachers searching mortared or dry stone walls can loosen stones and harm the appearance and/or structural integrity of walls. There's a big temptation to yank loose stones out of mortared walls to see whether the cache is back there. Once you work the stone free, just putting it back isn't going to fix it. And dry stone walls; well, just think about it: The only thing holding that wall together is the ingenious arrangement of those stones. Yoink one out and you weaken the wall.

None of this is the end of the world, mind you, but it is thoughtless damage, negligent vandalism. Not nice. Hides need to take human nature into account and avoid tempting finders to trample gardens, strip tree bark, damage structures, etc.

Frankly 'clever' hides are usually not very clever. They usually capitalize on the searcher's basic decency and reluctance to harm other people's stuff. If you want to hide something in a crevice in a stone wall, just say, "No need to tear the wall down--it's in a crack in the wall about 5 feet from the end."

The primary purpose of a good hide is to prevent accidental discovery, not to incite searchers to vandalism.

18.9k · January 11, 2006

Quick Google search reveals that many if not most of these walls have no mortar, are low to the ground, are little more than a stack of stones taken out of a nearby field to make the field farmable.....(please correct me if I am wrong)

2.1k · January 11, 2006

Maybe it's not a good idea to place cache containers in stone walls but, doggoneit, sometimes it sure can be fun. (This is a cache I found.)

Edited January 11, 2006 by Team Sagefox

January 11, 2006

Quick Google search reveals that many if not most of these walls have no mortar, are low to the ground, are little more than a stack of stones taken out of a nearby field to make the field farmable.....(please correct me if I am wrong)

I don't believe these walls are particularly rare or important relics, and they will gradually deteriorate and eventually disappear. But there's no sense in hastening their demise through sheer callousness. There's no place else to hide a cache?

1.7k · January 11, 2006

And dry stone walls; well, just think about it: The only thing holding that wall together is the ingenious arrangement of those stones. Yoink one out and you weaken the wall.

While searching for a cache, I pulled a stone from a sort of retaining wall. I tried to be careful and make sure I didn't move any stones that seemed stucturally significant. The stone was loose and came out pretty easily, so I assumed it wasn't load-bearing or critical to the integrity of the wall. Well, I must've dislodged something, because a couple seconds later a watermelon-sized stone started to tumble down. If I hadn't gotten out of the way, my leg would've been steamrolled by the stone and broken. I mentioned this in my DNF log, and the owner posted a note afterwards advising cachers not to take apart the wall.

2.6k · January 11, 2006

Quick Google search reveals that many if not most of these walls have no mortar, are low to the ground, are little more than a stack of stones taken out of a nearby field to make the field farmable.....(please correct me if I am wrong)

It's true. But many of them, in addition, have been stacked artfully in ways we often have difficulty duplicating today. Present you or me with a cartload of stones and, through our lack of experience, we are extremely unlikely to build even a low wall capable of standing for centuries.

No, it's not Stonehenge, but these things are often deeply cool and it would be a shame to hasten them off any faster. I wince when I walk up on a wall in the woods and realize the cache is probably going to be there. I haven't had the character to walk away from one, but I hate me a little for it...

2.7k · January 11, 2006

I've seen both several good stone wall hides and one bad one. In just about everyone I have seen, the cache is not in a place to make it hard to find the cache without disturbing th e rocks too much. One cache sticks out in my mind because the rocks were torn up pretty badly. But, that was the onle one, and I am not sure it was due to geocaching, or if it was placed in a bad section of the wall.

I believe stone walls are becoming historical structures, and are being increasingly protected.

Rather than 'ban' stone wall caches, I think hiders should place them judiciously. If the cache seems like a problam for THAT hide, then I don't see why the community couldn't gently prod the hider to improve it.

2.7k · January 11, 2006

I find the case you are making to be quite silly indeed. Is it really a problem that a couple of stones have been shifted in a stone wall out in the middle of the woods that no human being would ever notice? This is hardly a cause for concern and hardly worthy of even a passing thought.

Hobbyists (in any hobby) tend to create superfluous, self-defeating "rules and regulations" when they are too deepy entrenched. This is clearly one of them.

The making of these walls is a nearly lost art. Very few people know how to make these walls and the making of them is very meticulous and time consuming.

OTOH they can be destroyed in a matter of minutes by careless people.

I don't know about others, but when I don't find a cache in the obvious place, I tend to look harder. If I do not restrain myself, this would mean moving ALL the stones in a wall, because the cache COULD be hidden under any one of them.

The end result would be NO MORE WALL.

I will restrain myself. Sooner or later, someone will not. Sooner or later, the cache will not be easily found (possibly gone) and SOMEONE will destroy the wall.

Whether you consider a wall to be a valid art form or not, and whether or not anyone will ever know it got destroyed or that it even existed in the first place, carelessly destroying the property of another is a crime and a tradgedy.

Preservation of environment and art, to the best of our abilities without destroying our lifestyles, is everyone's responsibility.

I am not saying we need another "rule", but I concur with the OP that hiding caches on, in, or near stone walls is a VERY BAD idea. I do not think even a disclaimer will protect the wall. IMHO once a cache is placed in such a wall, the wall is doomed.

January 11, 2006

I think this is absolutely rediculous. A stone wall of a hundred years is still a stone wall and chances are that a stone wall of 2 years has 500 year old stones in it....why not protect that too. It's going too far. Cities are full of eye sore buildings because someone deems it "historical". Everything around you is history, stop geocaching all together because you're walking on 1000 year old dirt

January 12, 2006

I think this is absolutely rediculous. A stone wall of a hundred years is still a stone wall and chances are that a stone wall of 2 years has 500 year old stones in it....why not protect that too. It's going too far. Cities are full of eye sore buildings because someone deems it "historical". Everything around you is history, stop geocaching all together because you're walking on 1000 year old dirt

Ok, lets all show up at this guys house and destroy all his property. It's just old stuff anyway

January 12, 2006

I'm with Auntie Weasel on this one. Many old stone walls have historical significance, and are treasures; works of art. One of the basic tenets of geocaching (I always thought) is to try not to disturb things... whether they be part of nature, or part of our history. I'd be happy with a geocache hidden in a nearby bush, bringing me close enough to an old stone wall so that I can observe it and appreciate its workmanship.

- hamgran

10.1k · January 12, 2006

Put a cache in a stone wall, and people will move the stones looking for it. This is never a good idea. The walls get destroyed that way. If you don't mind the destruction of man-made artifacts, even if they're insignificant, that's your problem. I agree that it's a very bad idea.

January 12, 2006

was just trying to make a point....good one 5cent....the fact is that "all walls are not significant artifacts built by artisans...I'd be willing to say that most are simply piled rocks outling a farmers field. If we make rules based on the few bad apples that would destroy a wall for a cache (which I think are few) we should continue on with everything that anyone perceives as historically valuable. Do some research on Cincinatti slums, some of which are Historical treasures....give me a break. I'd like to think that geocachers for the most part are responsible persons who care about thier surroundings and are not going to purposely destroty "any" property. Historical or not. There is a cache near here in an old granite foundation, the cachers are not destroying it, the people filling it with matresses and oil filters are. Why don't we all put our energies into trying to stop that than trying to police the comunity whos majority is acting in the best interest of these "treasures"

10.1k · January 12, 2006

Some interesting concepts here. 'Some' may not care about the historical sites in the 'slums' of Cincinatti. So, should we tear them down, and redevelop the area? Who decides the asethetics?

"geocachers for the most part are responsible persons who care about thier surroundings and are not going to purposely destroty "any" property." For the most part, yes. 'Purposefully' and 'accidentally' may be two different thoughts, but both might result in destruction. Either gives a bad name to geocaching. That is something that needs to be scrupulously avoided in thhis sport. Unfortunately, sometimes one does need play to the least common denominator. "Might someone destroy this while searching?" If so, it is a bad idea.

There was an interesting multi in a nearby county park. The first stage was a micro in the foundation of long ago razed building. No one ever found the first stage. There were no DNFs logged. There were many footprints in the snow, and the wall was suffering very badly from the search. The cache owner, wisely, archived the cache before more damage was done. He had the best interests of geocaching in mind. That is, perhaps, the point that needs to be considered here. Not what geocachers, for the most part, might or might not do, but rather 'the best interests of geocaching'.

January 12, 2006

was just trying to make a point....good one 5cent....the fact is that "all walls are not significant artifacts built by artisans...I'd be willing to say that most are simply piled rocks outling a farmers field. If we make rules based on the few bad apples that would destroy a wall for a cache (which I think are few) we should continue on with everything that anyone perceives as historically valuable. Do some research on Cincinatti slums, some of which are Historical treasures....give me a break. I'd like to think that geocachers for the most part are responsible persons who care about thier surroundings and are not going to purposely destroty "any" property. Historical or not. There is a cache near here in an old granite foundation, the cachers are not destroying it, the people filling it with matresses and oil filters are. Why don't we all put our energies into trying to stop that than trying to police the comunity whos majority is acting in the best interest of these "treasures"

Nobody's talking about rules. There's an art to good cache placement, and part of that art is considering what searchers might do if they become frustrated looking for the cache. When the coords lead to a stone wall, what they might do is remove stones from the wall and destroy it. As Auntie Weasel said, it may not be Stonehenge, but there's something cool about these old arrangements of stones that may date back 300-400 years.

By contrast, dumping a mattress in such a spot is a benign act. Once the mattress is removed, everything's restored. Louse up a section of hand-laid dry-stone wall and the whole thing collapses and cannot reasonably be restored. CITO is a good idea, but removing litter is nothing compared to preserving historic structures--if only by being careful not to contribute to their decay.

Please don't employ that cheap debating tactic of exaggerating your opponent's position. Nobody here is saying that preservation of these crude walls takes precedence over development or other valuable land use. We're just saying that a decent person wouldn't knowingly contribute to the unnecessary destruction of any property, no matter how humble.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Mule Ears

5.7k · January 12, 2006

Is it really a problem that a couple of stones have been shifted in a stone wall out in the middle of the woods that no human being would ever notice?

So the NEW criteria on responsibility is based upon how many people witness the irresponsibility?

I guess it's okay to dump all my trash in the woods, because few people will see it. Heck, maybe next time I change my oil, I'll pour it into one of your nearby creeks, because few people will notice.

Perfect, thank you. It is amazing how little effort it takes to show a micro-gram of class and respect for property and history. Surprising how difficult it is sometimes to just leave it alone. Astounding.

4.5k · January 12, 2006

While I'm not suggesting we damage anything willy nilly, there are thousands of miles of 3-4 foot high walls in a typical New England county. Every 100 acre farm had walls around them and there were hundreds of farms in a county. Walls were built from the rocks that came out of the ground due to freezeing. The farmers had to do something with this nuisance so they built walls to mark their property limits.

Natural forces like trees falling down, floods etc are always knocking down portions of these to a much greater extemt tha a container search could do. I can't believe that a few caches placed in a county will ever be noticed in the realm of the number of thousands of miles of walls.

Another goecaching making a mountain out of a molehill.

5.7k · January 12, 2006

While I'm not suggesting we damage anything willy nilly, there are thousands of miles of 3-4 foot high walls in a typical New England county. Every 100 acre farm had walls around them and there were hundreds of farms in a county. Walls were built from the rocks that came out of the ground due to freezeing. The farmers had to do something with this nuisance so they built walls to mark their property limits.

Natural forces like trees falling down, floods etc are always knocking down portions of these to a much greater extemt tha a container search could do. I can't believe that a few caches placed in a county will ever be noticed in the realm of the number of thousands of miles of walls.

Another goecaching making a mountain out of a molehill.

Just leave it alone.

2.7k · January 12, 2006

Nobody's talking about rules. There's an art to good cache placement, and part of that art is considering what searchers might do if they become frustrated looking for the cache.

Exactly!

Not only for stone walls, but for every cache placement.

We must consider what is the worst that can happen if the seeker is off position or if the seeker, for whatever reason, does not find the cache.

Is it likely that anything will be destroyed in the search? Is it likely that the seeker will end up some place where they shouldn't be?

Is the cache worth the risk?

No new rules, just look around carefully and ask yourself these simple questions before hiding a cache.

January 12, 2006

There's no place else to hide a cache?

Anytime a thread comes up about questionable/bad hide locations (Wal-Mart lot hides come to mind...) I ask this question.

Seems like a lazy hiding technique to shove a micro in the crack of a wall.

And BTW, am I the only one that missed the link between litter and the destruction of these walls?

1.8k · January 12, 2006

Jeez, I'm surprised someone hasn't hidden a micro in the crack on the Liberty Bell.

5.7k · January 12, 2006

Jeez, I'm surprised someone hasn't hidden a micro in the crack on the Liberty Bell.

But for the fear of serious jail time.................

1.8k · January 12, 2006

If you've been around a couple of years, you've been disappointed in the behavior of other cachers. I'd like to see all of us be a bit careful, even if the wall means nothing, why knock it down? Not legislation! Just a bit of care. I don't understand WHY fishermen would ever leave plastic containers sittin' around the lake....... I just don't get it.

January 12, 2006

didn't somebody hide a cache in a stone wall in the shawshank redemption? -aclock

edit: preservation first, geocaching second

Edited January 12, 2006 by alarm Clock

4.5k · January 12, 2006

I do not think even a disclaimer will protect the wall. IMHO once a cache is placed in such a wall, the wall is doomed.

Hyperbole. A couple of people make the strawman claim that walls are being destroyed all over the place. Then everyone buys into this way overblown claim and we all run around wringing our hands as if it's really true.

This reminds me of the claim that we are destroying the forest because people bushwack. Lighten up folks.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Alan2

2.1k · January 12, 2006

didn't somebody hide a cache in a stone wall in the shawshank redemption?

Yes. Here is that scene from Shawshank.

2.7k · January 12, 2006

I do not think even a disclaimer will protect the wall. IMHO once a cache is placed in such a wall, the wall is doomed.

Hyperbole. A couple of people make the strawman claim that walls are being destroyed all over the place. Then everyone buys into this way overblown claim and we all run around wringing our hands as if it's really true.

This reminds me of the claim that we are destroying the forest because people bushwack. Lighten up folks.

While I don't disagree with you in principle, vegetation grows back. Ruined walls do not. It compounds the issue, though, whe you include the fact that many are along or near established trails, and could present an image problem if people assume the damage was done by geocachers (I'm talking about land maagers here).

That said, I've only found one cache in a wall that was in disrepair, and I am not certain that it wasn't a pre-exisiting tear & that the cache was hidden in the detritus well after the fact.

Please understand, I AGREE that stone wall caches SHOULD exist, just that they behidden judiciously, and sought likewise.

2.5k · January 12, 2006

I've found one or two of these wall caches when I was out east. I rather enjoyed these caches and wouldn't mind finding a few more. If I recall, there were many previous visitors before me. The walls didn't look disturbed to me, it just looked like a wall made out of rocks. I equate this to someone trying to preserve all chain link fences several hundred years from now.

2.1k · January 12, 2006

If I recall, there were many previous visitors before me. The walls didn't look disturbed to me, it just looked like a wall made out of rocks.

The cache in the photos I've posted above has been active since April of 2001 with 57 visitors. I didn't see one rock out of place or any laying on the ground.

January 12, 2006

Here in the UK things are rather different: we have tens of thousands of miles of dry stone walls and they are still built and maintained by a dwindling pool of skilled craftsmen. Some of them are intricate in their construction and are almost works of art. The Geocaching Association of Great Britain even feels the need add this to their guidelines for placing a cache: "No cache should be placed in or on a dry stone wall".

Edited January 12, 2006 by Mr Nibbler

3k · January 12, 2006

didn't somebody hide a cache in a stone wall in the shawshank redemption?

If I remember the movie correctly, the cache was buried in the ground next to the stone wall, not actually hidden in the wall itself.

The Shawshank Redemption

Andy Dufresne: Red. If you ever get out of here, do me a favor.

Red: Sure, Andy. Anything.

Andy Dufresne: There's a big hayfield up near Buxton. You know where Buxton is?

Red: Well, there's... there's a lot of hayfields up there.

Andy Dufresne: One in particular. It's got a long rock wall with a big oak tree at the north end. It's like something out of a Robert Frost poem. It's where I asked my wife to marry me. Promise me, Red. If you ever get out... find that spot. At the base of that wall, you'll find a rock that has no earthly business in a Maine hayfield. Piece of black, volcanic glass. There's something buried under it I want you to have.

Red: What, Andy? What's buried under there?

Andy Dufresne: [turns to walk away] You'll have to pry it up... to see.

January 12, 2006

Sorry had to do it..

The honest thing is yes history should be preserved, yes we should respect the places we cache and place caches, but I think this is getting blown way out of porportion. I have cached in New England and experienced many of these historic walls, and found a few caches along or near these walls, and most of the apparent damage that was done looked either damage from time or damage from someone other than cachers since the area where the caches where placed seemed to be in good shape.

38.2k · January 12, 2006

IMHO once a cache is placed in such a wall, the wall is doomed.

I have one that's been in a stone wall for going on 4 years. The wall is still there and looks the same as it did the day I placed it.

5.7k · January 12, 2006

IMHO once a cache is placed in such a wall, the wall is doomed.

I have one that's been in a stone wall for going on 4 years. The wall is still there and looks the same as it did the day I placed it.

I'm quite certain that that's true. I've also seen 'caches' jammed between brass memorial markers and the wall upon which they are mounted. As far as I know they are still there and the wall is still standing. This however does not mean that it is the right and respectful thing to do. Just because you can does not mean that you should.

January 12, 2006

Move a stone two inches every day and see how far away it gets from it's original spot. Did you notice that part about this being illegal in some places? I have not seen these stone walls, having never been to New England. I hope, however, that if I ever get out there they won't all be destroyed by someone who doesn't relize how special they are.

For those who have not been to New England, here is what a typical stone wall looks like. There are thousands of miles of them in the woods. They are not rare and most have no real historical value and go unnoticed. These stones were the bane of farmers who dug them up with their plows every spring and dumped them along these walls. What amazes me every time I see one is the size and weight of some of the rocks and how strong those farmers must have been...Their true significence may be that because of the difficulty of farming in New England and dealing with all these darned rocks, it helped encourage Westward Expansion to the more fertile (and less rocky) farmland in the Midwest. These stone walls are all in various states of decomposition anyway and I really doubt caching will cause any major destruction of these walls.

38.2k · January 12, 2006

Isn't it ironic how the building of these things caused major environmental damage, yet now they are sacred.

Put the rocks back where they belong - in the ground!

5.7k · January 12, 2006

Just leave them alone.

3k · January 12, 2006

I have seen many stone wall caches. In the majority of cases, I saw nothing which would seem to indicate that the wall was damaged or suffering stress as a result of people searching for the cache. In most cases, these caches were hidden in such a way that as long as you put a bit of effort into looking first, you didn't need to damage the wall to get to the container, or to put it back.

And some of the caches I'm talking about have been around for awhile. I'm sure that stone walls are sometime damaged by rough hands, but based on my own experience, my conclusion is that geocachers don't generally subscribe to a scorched-earth policy while hunting for caches in and around stone walls.

January 12, 2006

Yo Hadrian! Put the rocks back!!!

January 12, 2006

Jeez, I'm surprised someone hasn't hidden a micro in the crack on the Liberty Bell.

What? You don't see that film canister about 8 inches from the bottom?

5.7k · January 12, 2006

Jeez, I'm surprised someone hasn't hidden a micro in the crack on the Liberty Bell.

What? You don't see that film canister about 8 inches from the bottom?

Halarious.................good one! :huh:

January 12, 2006

Yo Hadrian! Put the rocks back!!!

Rocky Prequel, episode -27:

A centurion stationed at the very edge of the empire in the fourth century AD, Rocky is on guard duty at the wall when hundreds of blue-painted barbarians come screaming down from the hills...

January 12, 2006

Yo Hadrian! Put the rocks back!!!

Rocky Prequel, episode -27:

A centurion stationed at the very edge of the empire in the fourth century AD, Rocky is on guard duty at the wall when hundreds of blue-painted barbarians come screaming down from the hills...

Guess that was the beginning of the Barbaric practice of stone wall Vandalism....

Stone Wall Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment