Jump to content

Compliance To Guidelines


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I was just looking at a cache that I found a while back and the owner had disabled it due to compliance issues. He had written the coordinates for the second stage of his cache about three feet up inside of a 24" drain pipe on the top. You literally had to shimmy up the pipe on your back in order to see the coordinates. There is no way that anyone could have seen this without looking for it.

 

I know that graffitti is a no-no, but this cacher made sure that his coordinates didn't de-face the visible landscape. What do you think?

Link to comment

I was just looking at a cache that I found a while back and the owner had disabled it due to compliance issues. He had written the coordinates for the second stage of his cache about three feet up inside of a 24" drain pipe on the top. You literally had to shimmy up the pipe on your back in order to see the coordinates. There is no way that anyone could have seen this without looking for it.

 

I know that graffitti is a no-no, but this cacher made sure that his coordinates didn't de-face the visible landscape. What do you think?

Did the land manager give permission to do this?

If no, is there a law against graffiti? If yes, is there a section of that law that says graffiti is ok if it isn't easily visible?

 

In other words, if the property owner/land manger decided to pursue it, could the cache owner be charged with a crime?

 

If you need to commit a crime to hide/find a cache it should not be listed here, IMNHO.

Link to comment

I think that it isn't graffitti and considering the other caches I've found I don't think gc.com thinks so either.

 

Are you saying that's why it was archived?

 

Edited to clarify that graffitti is used for caches but may or may not be the reason for archiving.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Would there be an issue if the coords were written on removable media such as tape?

 

That's not what I'm saying at all. If I have to crawl through a sewer pipe to get coords, it's not graffitti. And if anyone thinks it is then they like sewer pipes just a little too much.

 

My question is why was it archived? What's the story, exactly, about this non-compliance.

 

Edited to note that I just now saw your second posting.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Would there be an issue if the coords were written on removable media such as tape?

 

That's not what I'm saying at all. If I have to crawl through a sewer pipe to get coords, [blue]it's not graffitti[/blue. And if anyone thinks it is then they like sewer pipes just a little too much.

 

My question is why was it archived? What's the story, exactly, about this non-compliance.

 

Edited to note that I just now saw your second posting.

 

I'm sorry but that is a stupid excuse to discount it as being graffiti, because it is in a pipe.

 

California penal code:

 

640.6. (a) (1) Except as provided in Section 640.5, any person who

defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material any real or

personal property not his or her own, when the amount of the

defacement, damage, or destruction is less than two hundred fifty

dollars ($250), is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not

to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). This subdivision does not

preclude application of Section 594.

Link to comment

Well, that didn't take long. Here is the email exchange between us.

 

 

--This message was sent through http://www.geocaching.com

 

Hello,

 

I noticed that you temporarily disabled your "cache name deleted" cache due

to compliance issues. Did someone get bent over the fact that you wrote

inside of a drainage tube? That seems extreme.

 

Anyway I was wondering whether you could write the coords on tape and

stick them inside of the pipe instead. This may not be in violation of

the guidelines because it would be removable.

 

Anyway, we really enjoyed your cache and hope to see it back up soon.

 

Regards,

 

Joe of TC

 

Joe-

 

That was pretty much my reaction as well, but hey, if that's the worst thing

that happens to me this year, things are going great!

 

Thanks for the idea, and I will probably do that in the near future. Been

in and out of town recently and just have not had the time!

 

Glad you enjoyed the cache! More are coming!

 

Jon

 

So I guessed right.

Link to comment

[

 

I'm sorry but that is a stupid excuse to discount it as being graffiti, because it is in a pipe.

 

California penal code:

 

640.6. (a) (1)

 

A stupid excuse. oops a stupid excuse. hmmmm, really, interesting, property damage in a sewer. Let me know where to donate to the cause.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

[

 

I'm sorry but that is a stupid excuse to discount it as being graffiti, because it is in a pipe.

 

California penal code:

 

640.6. (a) (1)

 

A stupid excuse. oops a stupid excuse. hmmmm, really, interesting, property damage in a sewer. Let me know where to donate to the cause.

 

It doesn't matter where the markings are, it is still graffiti. See the cache hiding guidelines. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

On a side note, why on earth would cachers want to visit an apartment complex, drain pipe to get coordinates?

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

I think that it isn't graffitti and considering the other caches I've found I don't think gc.com thinks so either.

I would not rely on your experience in finding caches with graffiti as support for the proposition that gc.com does not think defacing objects is a problem. Rather, it is support for the proposition that if you do not give away too much information in your cache description, you can slide a guidelines violation past the volunteer cache reviewer. Since reviewers do not inspect the cache sites prior to publication, they rely on reports from the community for guideline violations that might slip through the cracks. Or, in this case, through the pipes.

Link to comment

[

 

I'm sorry but that is a stupid excuse to discount it as being graffiti, because it is in a pipe.

 

California penal code:

 

640.6. (a) (1)

 

A stupid excuse. oops a stupid excuse. hmmmm, really, interesting, property damage in a sewer. Let me know where to donate to the cause.

 

It doesn't matter where the markings are, it is still graffiti. See the cache hiding guidelines. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

On a side note, why on earth would cachers want to visit an apartment complex, drain pipe to get coordinates?

I would

Link to comment

I think that it isn't graffitti and considering the other caches I've found I don't think gc.com thinks so either.

I would not rely on your experience in finding caches with graffiti as support for the proposition that gc.com does not think defacing objects is a problem. Rather, it is support for the proposition that if you do not give away too much information in your cache description, you can slide a guidelines violation past the volunteer cache reviewer. Since reviewers do not inspect the cache sites prior to publication, they rely on reports from the community for guideline violations that might slip through the cracks. Or, in this case, through the pipes.

 

You assume that I think that gc.com supports defacing property. You don't rely on my experience. I don't rely on you understanding me.

 

edited for less angst.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

[

 

I'm sorry but that is a stupid excuse to discount it as being graffiti, because it is in a pipe.

 

California penal code:

 

640.6. (a) (1)

 

A stupid excuse. oops a stupid excuse. hmmmm, really, interesting, property damage in a sewer. Let me know where to donate to the cause.

 

It doesn't matter where the markings are, it is still graffiti. See the cache hiding guidelines. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

On a side note, why on earth would cachers want to visit an apartment complex, drain pipe to get coordinates?

I would

And I wouldn't. Although clever, it isn't taking me anyplace I would want to be.

Link to comment

 

It doesn't matter where the markings are, it is still graffiti. See the cache hiding guidelines. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

 

I just can't seem to get very worked up about this one. It's kind of like driving 55.125 in a 55 mph zone. Sure it's against the law, but...

 

In the big picture I don't think gc.com or the cache hider will get much negative exposure over this one.

Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment

 

It doesn't matter where the markings are, it is still graffiti. See the cache hiding guidelines. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

 

Okay, I admit that my opinion of the accepted practice comes from some the the multi caches I have found.

 

(Although I still think that a sharpie coords in a sewer isn't defacing anything. Probably tresspassing anyway)

Link to comment

[

 

I'm sorry but that is a stupid excuse to discount it as being graffiti, because it is in a pipe.

 

California penal code:

 

640.6. (a) (1)

 

A stupid excuse. oops a stupid excuse. hmmmm, really, interesting, property damage in a sewer. Let me know where to donate to the cause.

 

It doesn't matter where the markings are, it is still graffiti. See the cache hiding guidelines. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

On a side note, why on earth would cachers want to visit an apartment complex, drain pipe to get coordinates?

I would

And I wouldn't. Although clever, it isn't taking me anyplace I would want to be.

 

I would. I think it would be kind of unusual, interesting and fun.

Link to comment

[

 

I'm sorry but that is a stupid excuse to discount it as being graffiti, because it is in a pipe.

 

California penal code:

 

640.6. (a) (1)

 

A stupid excuse. oops a stupid excuse. hmmmm, really, interesting, property damage in a sewer. Let me know where to donate to the cause.

 

It doesn't matter where the markings are, it is still graffiti. See the cache hiding guidelines. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

On a side note, why on earth would cachers want to visit an apartment complex, drain pipe to get coordinates?

I would

And I wouldn't. Although clever, it isn't taking me anyplace I would want to be.

My log on said cache:

"Thank you for bringing me to your special place"

Link to comment

I think that it isn't graffitti and considering the other caches I've found I don't think gc.com thinks so either.

I would not rely on your experience in finding caches with graffiti as support for the proposition that gc.com does not think defacing objects is a problem. Rather, it is support for the proposition that if you do not give away too much information in your cache description, you can slide a guidelines violation past the volunteer cache reviewer. Since reviewers do not inspect the cache sites prior to publication, they rely on reports from the community for guideline violations that might slip through the cracks. Or, in this case, through the pipes.

 

Really. So you know my experience and there's never anything in a description that would indicate how a first leg coord is posted.

 

How fortunate.

Looking at the 26 multicaches and three puzzle caches that you've found, not a single one of them describes having to find coordinates by looking at graffiti on any natural or man-made object. Just the usual assortment of taking information from plaques, figuring out math puzzles, finding a micro to give the coords to an ammo box, etc. So unless you haven't logged all your finds, I'm just not seeing any support for your original statement.

 

But let's assume that a few of those 29 caches DID involve sharpies and the inside of a hollow tree trunk, or the back side of a road sign. Since it's not mentioned on the cache page, how's the reviewer supposed to catch this?

 

In cases where graffiti IS brought to a reviewer's attention, I have personal experience watching how Groundspeak has dealt with the situation. My favorite memory is when Hydee called a teenage geocacher's mommy to explain that she had a choice between answering to the police, or having her son remove the spray painted arrows he had left on trees and rocks as part of his geocache.

Link to comment

I think that it isn't graffitti and considering the other caches I've found I don't think gc.com thinks so either.

I would not rely on your experience in finding caches with graffiti as support for the proposition that gc.com does not think defacing objects is a problem. Rather, it is support for the proposition that if you do not give away too much information in your cache description, you can slide a guidelines violation past the volunteer cache reviewer. Since reviewers do not inspect the cache sites prior to publication, they rely on reports from the community for guideline violations that might slip through the cracks. Or, in this case, through the pipes.

 

Really. So you know my experience and there's never anything in a description that would indicate how a first leg coord is posted.

 

How fortunate.

Looking at the 26 multicaches and three puzzle caches that you've found, not a single one of them describes having to find coordinates by looking at graffiti on any natural or man-made object. Just the usual assortment of taking information from plaques, figuring out math puzzles, finding a micro to give the coords to an ammo box, etc. So unless you haven't logged all your finds, I'm just not seeing any support for your original statement.

 

But let's assume that a few of those 29 caches DID involve sharpies and the inside of a hollow tree trunk, or the back side of a road sign. Since it's not mentioned on the cache page, how's the reviewer supposed to catch this?

 

In cases where graffiti IS brought to a reviewer's attention, I have personal experience watching how Groundspeak has dealt with the situation. My favorite memory is when Hydee called a teenage geocacher's mommy to explain that she had a choice between answering to the police, or having her son remove the spray painted arrows he had left on trees and rocks as part of his geocache.

 

Ok, I can admit I'm wrong. I could have sworn a couple at least hinted of where the coords were posted.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

 

It doesn't matter where the markings are, it is still graffiti. See the cache hiding guidelines. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

 

I just can't seem to get very worked up about this one. It's kind of like driving 55.125 in a 55 mph zone. Sure it's against the law, but...

 

In the big picture I don't think gc.com or the cache hider will get much negative exposure over this one.

 

The problem, with the "big picture" as you describe it, is leaving things up to the sensibilities of the in-duh-vidual. If 55.125 is ok, how about 61.331? 74.275? How about 155.125? Sure, you and I might agree that that's pushing it a bit - but in the mind of the person doing it, petty justifications run rampant.

 

It's a short walk from a Sharpie inside a sewer pipe to renting an up-and-over and tattooing the side of the Empire State Building... When it's carried to its [il]logical conclusion - where does it end?

Link to comment

Okay it's against the guidelines. I realize that writing coordinates on a drainage pipe is pushing the envelope a little, but I guess I'm somewhat surprised that someone found it necessary to report it.

 

As for the quality of the cache, the fact is the final stage was hidden in a nice spot near a small stream. I enjoyed it. Those of you who wouldn't enjoy caches like these are free to avoid them.

 

Anyway, is it acceptable to write the coords on tape and stick them to the top of the pipe?

Link to comment

Actually, it's quite a long walk from sharpie inside a sewer pipe to "tattooing the side of the Empire State Building". However, it's still technically wrong, and allowing it would set a bad precedent. Now, if I came across something like this, I would never report it, log the find, and still sleep well at night.

Link to comment

 

It doesn't matter where the markings are, it is still graffiti. See the cache hiding guidelines. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

 

I just can't seem to get very worked up about this one. It's kind of like driving 55.125 in a 55 mph zone. Sure it's against the law, but...

 

In the big picture I don't think gc.com or the cache hider will get much negative exposure over this one.

 

If you are the one that owns or has to maintain the pipe I'm sure your view will be very different.

Edited by Glenn
Link to comment

I know its hard to get worked up about tiny markings in a sewer pipe. I doubt any would ever get arrested for

doing so and if you called the police to report it, I'm sure you'd be laughed into the next state.

 

Still, its illegal and we should't be listing caches that use illegal methods. I think the real danger is that some newb comes along and thinks its a grand idea and does the same thing on a guardrail and the next one puts it on a traffic sign and the next one... Its just a bad precedent. So to answer the OP, no we are not going too far.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

My favorite memory is when Hydee called a teenage geocacher's mommy to explain that she had a choice between answering to the police, or having her son remove the spray painted arrows he had left on trees and rocks as part of his geocache.

 

Hahahaha you go girl!

Link to comment

My favorite memory is when Hydee called a teenage geocacher's mommy to explain that she had a choice between answering to the police, or having her son remove the spray painted arrows he had left on trees and rocks as part of his geocache.

 

Hahahaha you go girl!

 

Well, I'm glad to see my area is not unique for having it's share of "bad teen hides" :P In my case it's a gang of middle schoolers, and they come up with some doozies. :mad: Doesn't stop 99% of the cachers in my area from running out and gleefully finding them though :o

 

OK, on topic here. Anyone know when the "grafitti rule" was added to the guidelines? Would a multi with grafitti for a leg from say 2002 be considered grandfathered?

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

I think the real danger is that some newb comes along and thinks its a grand idea and does the same thing on a guardrail and the next one puts it on a traffic sign and the next one... Its just a bad precedent. So to answer the OP, no we are not going too far.

Exactly. When I was in the Boston area I was surprised at how many multis had the second stage coords written on something. Some were unobtrusive but others quite blatant. One cache had stage two coords written in magic marker on the outside wall of a beautiful historic log building! I had an email exchange with the cache owners and the couldn;t understand why I was questioning the appropriateness of the stage. I've got to believe they learned the technique from a less objectionable hide of the same nature.

Link to comment

What a silly discussion. The operative word here is "deface". Markings on the inside of a small drainage pipe where no one is likely ever to venture (other than for the cache) doesn't quite fit the term.

 

Deface - 1. to mar the face or appearance of; disfigure. 2. to efface, obliterate, or injure the surface of, as to make illegible, invalid, etc.

 

Where's the defacement? If the markings do no harm and remain unobserved there is none.

 

The argument of escalation/tranference is invalid hyperbole as well. Each case should be considered on it's own merits, not on what it might spur a dunderhead to try.

Edited by salmoned
Link to comment

Anyone know when the "grafitti rule" was added to the guidelines? Would a multi with grafitti for a leg from say 2002 be considered grandfathered?

In the February 2005 update to the Guidelines, the existing language about not defacing property to provide a clue or a logging method was expanded from its prior location in the “offset cache” discussion, to become a new item in the list of “off limits” cache locations.

 

So, if an example from earlier than 2005 was not an "offset cache," it is arguably grandfathered if one looks at the letter of the guidelines, rather than their spirit. Also, I don't believe that the guidelines mentioned the grafitti issue prior to Spring of 2003, but I could be wrong about that. I would need to check via the wayback machine since I wasn't helping out with editing the guidelines at that time.

Link to comment

Exactly. When I was in the Boston area I was surprised at how many multis had the second stage coords written on something. Some were unobtrusive but others quite blatant. One cache had stage two coords written in magic marker on the outside wall of a beautiful historic log building! I had an email exchange with the cache owners and the couldn;t understand why I was questioning the appropriateness of the stage. I've got to believe they learned the technique from a less objectionable hide of the same nature.

If this cache were in my review territory and it was reported to me via a "should be archived" log or a private e-mail, I would ask the owner to correct the problem. If that didn't happen, I would archive the listing.

Link to comment

What a silly discussion. The operative word here is "deface". Markings on the inside of a small drainage pipe where no one is likely ever to venture (other than for the cache) doesn't quite fit the term.

 

Deface - 1. to mar the face or appearance of; disfigure. 2. to efface, obliterate, or injure the surface of, as to make illegible, invalid, etc.

 

Where's the defacement? If the markings do no harm and remain unobserved there is none.

 

The argument of escalation/tranference is invalid hyperbole as well. Each case should be considered on it's own merits, not on what it might spur a dunderhead to try.

I don't find it silly at all. Presumably, maintenance workers venture into the drainage tunnels from time to time. Otherwise, what are all those access covers and steps for? It's not unreasonable to picture a situation where scrawled latitude and longitude coordinates are traced back to Geocaching after being reported by a maintenance worker. Given how easy it is to use a non-permanent clue method, why take the risk? Just because a 13 year old with a can of spray paint tags the inside of a drainage tunnel, that doesn't justify my using a sharpie to mark the clue to the next stage of a geocache.

 

From dealing with land managers, I can give any number of examples where seemingly minor transgressions have been blown way out of proportion to support an anti-geocaching agenda. Why add fuel to the fire when it's so easy to avoid?

Link to comment

You mean like why approve a cache on the restricted side of "No Trespassing" signs when some other location (with no signs) could serve just as well? You can't have it both ways, either enforce compliance or ignore it. Paying lip-service to compliance is just a bit too disingenuous for my blood.

Link to comment

I would ask did the cache placer have permission for adding co ordinates in this pipe?

 

Does one of the apartment complexes own the land or did they just sign an access agreement with the city for proper drainage.???

 

Just bcause a city may have a utility easement for it does not make it public property......

 

Sewer water electrical easements are not highways right of ways....

 

 

Dave from Team_Talisman

Link to comment

Anyone know when the "grafitti rule" was added to the guidelines? Would a multi with grafitti for a leg from say 2002 be considered grandfathered?

 

So, if an example from earlier than 2005 was not an "offset cache," it is arguably grandfathered if one looks at the letter of the guidelines, rather than their spirit. Also, I don't believe that the guidelines mentioned the grafitti issue prior to Spring of 2003, but I could be wrong about that. I would need to check via the wayback machine since I wasn't helping out with editing the guidelines at that time.

 

Thanks for responding, Keystone. I can check the wayback machine myself, I know you're very busy :o

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...