Are The Rules That Important

[+Captain Gore-tex]

A quick note to gauge opinion....

 

After a couple of unsuccessful attempts I reverted to 'previous finder' help to locate a cache that has proved quite elusive for many, despite being a one *. I did find it but it was located within an area of collapsed dry stone walling, which is why I hadn't found it previously as I believed this type of site wasn't acceptable so hadn't searched it.

 

I duly logged the cache and emailed the owner a polite message regarding its site to receive a less than complimentary reply indicating that I need to go forth and purchase a new life. On reflection I can understand that as the cache is quite remote, and the wall is in a state of disrepair, there may be some merit in not complaining, I had found it and searching for a cache isn't compulsory. I personally believe that this view is outweighed by the possibility of damage being caused to someone else's property by poor positioning of a cache, especially as there are a thousand and one other possible sites in the near vicinity.

 

Should I report it to the moderators for their decision, or should I wind my neck in?

[Deceangi]

Should I report it to the moderators for their decision, or should I wind my neck in?

 

Consider the cache reported. If you email me at the email address on my profile or PM me with the GC No and cache name I will look into it.

 

After a couple of unsuccessful attempts I reverted to 'previous finder' help to locate a cache that has proved quite elusive for many, despite being a one *. I did find it but it was located within an area of collapsed dry stone walling, which is why I hadn't found it previously as I believed this type of site wasn't acceptable so hadn't searched it.

 

I'm aware of other caches which were in similar types of locations, being moved by their owners, due to the unsuitability of the location.

 

I duly logged the cache and emailed the owner a polite message regarding its site to receive a less than complimentary reply indicating that I need to go forth and purchase a new life.

 

If you have received an abusive email through GC. Please consider reporting it to contact(at)geocaching. com who will investigate any complaints.

 

Deceangi

[Team 'James W']

Should I report it to the moderators for their decision, or should I wind my neck in?

 

I think you should yes - but I think it's fair to say that by posting the question on here, you kind of are, anyway (as some cache moderators are also the forum moderators). You see that a lot on here, I think. I guess it's a way of doing something you're not sure about and not feeling so bad about it.

 

Not a bad thing, I guess.

 

Edited for factual correctness!

Edited June 9, 2006 by Team 'James W'

[Deceangi]

Should I report it to the moderators for their decision, or should I wind my neck in?

 

I think you should yes - but I think it's fair to say that by posting the question on here, you kind of are, anyway (as the forum moderators are also the cache moderators). You see that a lot on here, I think. I guess it's a way of doing something you're not sure about and not feeling so bad about it.

 

Not a bad thing, I guess.

 

Just one slight correction Lactodorum is a Forum Moderator/ Cache Reviewer, I'm just a lowly Cache Reviewer

 

Forum Moderators have "Moderator" under their Avatars

 

Deceangi

[Team 'James W']

Corrected!

[+Captain Gore-tex]

Okay, consider it job done, not worried about banter from the owner, he/she is entitled to their opinion, am happy to ignore it. The matter is now closed.

[+Captain Gore-tex]

Just reopend the topic at the suggestion of another cacher, it may be that people may wish the opportunity to post to this one following an interesting turn of events!

[+Sensei TSKC]

So what's the turn of events that made you re-open this thread? Am intrigued.

[The Royles]

Not sure that any comment is needed.

 

Let the big boys deal with it and get on with enjoying yourself caching.

[+doctor scotland]

something to do with all this i guess!

link to cache log

it seems that the cacher in question has had all of his caches archived due to abusive behaviour towards another geocacher, - placing a cache in a dry stone wall was just the start of it!

 

the terms 'shooting yourself in the foot' and 'throwing your toys out of the pram' seem quite apt here i think!

[+Sensei TSKC]

... and this one I presume:

his only "unarchived" cache (although he has temp disabled it.)

 

Thanks for the update Dr Scotland

Edited June 11, 2006 by Sensei TSKC

[The Royles]

......it seems that the cacher in question has had all of his caches archived due to abusive behaviour towards another geocacher........

 

I think he was the one who archived the caches.

 

The only one archived by a reviewer was done so because of questions about its placement.

[+ReadyOrNot]

......it seems that the cacher in question has had all of his caches archived due to abusive behaviour towards another geocacher........

 

I think he was the one who archived the caches.

 

The only one archived by a reviewer was done so because of questions about its placement.

 

No. The reviewer archived all those caches because of what looks like a pissing match between the cache owner and the reviewers. The main cache in question was archived because the reviewer didn't like the comments made by the cache owner (which has nothing to do with cache placement).

 

Just from looking at the cache logs, I would say that the reviewers are WAY out of line and clearing acting out of spite towards the cache owners comments about them.

 

Just my 2 cents

[Deceangi]

......it seems that the cacher in question has had all of his caches archived due to abusive behaviour towards another geocacher........

 

I think he was the one who archived the caches.

 

The only one archived by a reviewer was done so because of questions about its placement.

 

No. The reviewer archived all those caches because of what looks like a pissing match between the cache owner and the reviewers. The main cache in question was archived because the reviewer didn't like the comments made by the cache owner (which has nothing to do with cache placement).

 

Just from looking at the cache logs, I would say that the reviewers are WAY out of line and clearing acting out of spite towards the cache owners comments about them.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Just so why the actions taken are clear, when you become a member of this site you agree to the Groundspeak Terms and conditions.

 

Which can be found here

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

Whilst this is aimed mainly at the forums, it also applys to cache pages and logs made on them.

 

The first cache was Temporarily Disabled with a request that the owner clarify a potential problem with the cache. This He chose to ignore and enabled the cache. My colleague Lactodorum again Temporarily Disabled it, and requested the same issue be clarified. The owner again enabled without dealing with the issue, and made derogatory remarks in the log. As the owner refused to clarify the issue and because of the additional derogatory remarks, the cache was archived.

 

The cache owner then proceeded to Temporarily Disable all his caches. With the same log, which was a personal attack against 3 members of this site (please remember Reviewers are still members of the site). He also stated that these caches would only be enabled once the original Archived cache was reinstated to the site. This statement can only be read as a attempt to blackmail us into re-instating the Archived cache. After discussing it, Lactodorum and I both agreed that the only choice left open to us was to Archive the caches.

 

Deceangi

[+Simply Paul]

I'll wade into this, as I'm that sort of fool

 

Seems like there's been a degree of over reaction on both sides to me. I say this without knowing all the details - I've no idea of the content of private emails, for example. If the cache owner really did push the boat out on the abuse front, then I suppose having all their caches archived would be appropriate...

 

Temporary Disabled caches can still be found and logged, and could have remained disabled for a few weeks while the dust settled and tensions dissipated. If I were in charge, I would have put a note on the caches to say I'd let them remain disabled for say two months before archiving them, and to remind the cache owner (and everyone else) that personal attacks (although attack may be too strong a word for the comments in the logs. They're not nice, but they don't go for the jugular) aren't ok. I blame the recent heat!

 

All this said, I support the reviewers and hope that the cache owner sees sense and deletes the inappropriate logs to get their caches revived. I like to think this olive branch has already been extended to them privately.

 

Edit: The original 'problem cache' would have to be sorted out as a separate issue as ignoring reviewer requests for info isn't the way to resolve disagreements.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Simply Paul

[+Geo-Kate]

What the reviewers have done is absolutely right and in no way out of line, I think the cache owner is lucky he still has an account!

 

If somebody choses to attack other cachers, ignore moderators/reviewer queries about caches, and keep re-enabling them after thay have been disabled, should be duly punished. What example would it set to let things like this go?

[+naffita]

edited, as alterations to post No.14 now make my comments redundant.

Edited June 12, 2006 by naffita

[+Jango & Boba Fett]

Useful and sometimes sensible as GAGB may be, we all signed up to GC.com, and agreed to their guidelines, not all of us are members of GAGB.

What you failed to also highlight is that according to GC.com local reviewers are bound by local laws and guidelines produced by local caching organizations. Just as well otherwise we would have exclusion zones around railway lines and government buildings (so nothing near schools, clear out the centre of London) and what about all those caches in National Parks!

[+naffita]

 

What you failed to also highlight is that according to GC.com local reviewers are bound by local laws and guidelines produced by local caching organizations. Just as well otherwise we would have exclusion zones around railway lines and government buildings (so nothing near schools, clear out the centre of London) and what about all those caches in National Parks!

 

edited, as alterations to post No.14 now make my comments redundant.

Edited June 12, 2006 by naffita

[+Pharisee]

Our Reviewers (and I have great respect for them) have stated in numerous previous threads that when it comes to publishing or rejecting caches, they are bound only by geocaching.com guidelines unless the cache being reviewed is placed in an area for which a specific agreement has been reached with the land owner / manager. They are NOT bound by anything that the G.A.G.B. might consider being their guidelines that are over and above those set by g.com, however ‘good’ they may be.

 

To the best of my knowledge, geocaching.com guidelines do not forbid the hiding of caches in a wall, dry stone or otherwise (unless it could be deemed a possible target for a terrorist attack ). This ‘guideline’ would seem to have evolved in the UK only and while I whole heartedly agree with it, it has nothing to do with g.com.

 

I believe that it should fall into the same category as black bin liners. Our reviewers should, quite rightly, ask the cache setter to reconsider the cache location, but if the cache setter chooses not to do so, then providing the cache meets g.com guidelines in all other respects, the cache should be published. If the cache in question, was outside of an area where a properly negotiated agreement was in force and specifically forbids hiding caches in a dry stone wall then in this instance I believe that Lactodorum overstepped his authority by de-activating the cache in the first place and then de-activating it for a second time when the setter chose not to remove or relocate it.

 

An angry response by the cache setter was probably justified, although NOT the personal abuse that apparently followed and precipitated this unfortunate chain of events.

 

Perhaps we could have some clear and un-equivocal clarification, for the benefit of all.

 

1) Does a cache hidden in a wall actually contravene any of geocaching.com’s guidelines?

 

2) If it doesn’t, by what authority do our reviewers reject or disable caches so hidden?

 

Please, note…. This posting does not mean that I approve of caches hidden in dry stone walls… I most certainly don’t but it would appear that we could be accused of applying double standards in this case. If our reviewers are going to enforce a total ban on caches in stone walls purely on the grounds of it being ‘bad practise’ in the UK, why are they not also enforcing a total ban on other bad practises like plastic bags round caches for the same reason? Could this be the opening of a whole new can of worms?

[+Andy&BeckyRiley]

Looking at the cache he quotes in the log of the disabled cache (Kissing gate), that is clearly in a dry stone wall too. Will that be disabled?

 

Andy

[Lactodorum]

Our Reviewers (and I have great respect for them)

Good start

<snip>

An angry response by the cache setter was probably justified, although NOT the personal abuse that apparently followed and precipitated this unfortunate chain of events.

The angry response was not what caused the caches to be archived, nor were subsequent caches suspected of being in dry stone walls. The personal attacks/abuse was the reason.

 

Perhaps we could have some clear and un-equivocal clarification, for the benefit of all.

 

1) Does a cache hidden in a wall actually contravene any of geocaching.com's guidelines?

No

 

2) If it doesn't, by what authority do our reviewers reject or disable caches so hidden?

As has already been suggested we are expected to have knowledge of, and take account of, local "circumstances". We daily allow caches that would never be allowed in the USA because the situation is different here. We try to take into account anything relevant when reviewing caches and maybe we sometimes get it wrong. However we certainly don't (or try d.amned hard not to) have any personal agenda when reviewing.

 

In the case of dry stone walls this is a pragmatic approach to try to "educate" inexperienced cache hunters that there is no point in dismantling walls as they are guaranteed NOT to find a cache there. It is to avoid inadvertant damage, maybe not at "your" cache but at some stage in the future.

 

Plastic bags are different in that they don't cause lasting damage (unless you're a determined animal who's chewed their way through one!), they're just a plain nuisance.

 

That is the thinking. However, and there is always a however isn't there! If a landowner gives specific consent for a cache in a wall on his/her land then it gets published. In the same way, if you bury a cache in your garden (and state this on the cache page) then that gets published too. At the end of the day the person who owns the land gets the final say so.

 

However (another one !), all that being said, there could be a situation where a landowner says "Yes" but for reasons I can't currently think of we may not publish. In the three years I've been reviewing I've learned that there's more "Art" than "Science" in it.

[Lactodorum]

Looking at the cache he quotes in the log of the disabled cache (Kissing gate), that is clearly in a dry stone wall too. Will that be disabled?

 

Andy

It's certainly being looked at.

[+Jaz666]

Very good post Pharisee.

Another point to discuss is in Deceangi's first disabling log entry on that cache, where he mentions caches shouldn't be placed in "spillage" from DSWs either.

As far as I'm aware, the GAGB have never stated this in their guidelines.

I can think of many many caches which would fall foul of this.

 

Personal opinion?

In or on DSWs - No thanks.

Next to/under spillage - Fine, but with warning on cache page.

[+Geo-Kate]

 

Personal opinion?

In or on DSWs - No thanks.

Next to/under spillage - Fine, but with warning on cache page.

 

Then it could start to get confusing... You will eventually have to ask when a part fallen wall becomes 'spillage' or not. It may be making the 'grey area' too big and introduce more problems. If we are to go down the route, it would be simpler to have a clear-cut yes/no answer.

 

It seems to me that GC.com should allow reviewers to actually edit the setting guidlines, so the guidlines for a UK reviewer would be different to those of a US reviewer. Then the problem with caches meeting GC guidlines but not GAGB ones will be solved.

[Dave from Glanton]

Next to/under spillage - Fine, but with warning on cache page.

I would question the practicality of hiding in spillage, as it's likely that these are the sort of stones that could get removed by the landowner for re-use/repair work, thus running the risk of leaving the cache exposed

[+Kryten]

Hiding in spillage is really just splitting hairs. Our GPS receivers are not that accurate so if a cacher arrives at ground zero and the area includes some intact wall and a broken down section with spillage, we need to know that all of it is always out of bounds. If the cache is hidden in spillage, the remaining wall is going to get damaged as people search. It's no good expecting a warning on the cache page to protect the wall because many cachers only read the page once their initial search fails. Worse, having found one cache in a wall/spliiage hide, cachers are more likely to search subsequent walls that they come across.

[Lactodorum]

Hiding in spillage is really just splitting hairs. Our GPS receivers are not that accurate so if a cacher arrives at ground zero and the area includes some intact wall and a broken down section with spillage, we need to know that all of it is always out of bounds. If the cache is hidden in spillage, the remaining wall is going to get damaged as people search. It's no good expecting a warning on the cache page to protect the wall because many cachers only read the page once their initial search fails. Worse, having found one cache in a wall/spliiage hide, cachers are more likely to search subsequent walls that they come across.

 

Precisely!

[+The Forester]

 

Perhaps we could have some clear and un-equivocal clarification, for the benefit of all.

1) Does a cache hidden in a wall actually contravene any of geocaching.com's guidelines?

No

 

Good. That clears that up.

 

there is no point in dismantling walls as they are guaranteed NOT to find a cache there

 

I'd never heard of that particular guarantee. It's clearly not worth the paper it's written on. By the way, where is it written? Is it a GC.com guarantee? or some third party guarantee? All Geocachers agree to the rules of geocaching as published by GC.com and less than 1% of geocachers are subscribing members of third party organisations such as GAGB. I'd be surprised if as many as 0.1% of geocachers worldwide have even heard of that particular club.

 

I happily recall making two attempts to find an excellent cache in the Ochils which most certainly is located inside a drystone wall. It's a very good place to hide a cache and both the environment and geocaching itself are none the worse for its existence. I'm glad that I'd never heard of the guarantee that the cache could not be found in that wall, because inside a wall is exactly where it is.

 

If we were to accept such an absurd stricture as an absolute ban on caching in or adjacent to walls, then geocaching would not be enhanced in any way, so I'm glad to see such an unequivocal declaration by a GC.com representative that there is no such ban.

 

Drystone walls are quite literally close to my heart. I have between one and two kilometres of them right here at Forester Towers, in varying states of repair. For most of the lengths of the disused walls, there could/would be no possible objection to a cache or caches being sensibly hidden inside. I did get a bit miffed when a sleepy lorry driver parked a 32 tonne artic inside one of them at very high speed one night, but a wee bit of tupperware in a sensibly considered place in a suitable bit of wall would be no problem!

 

Cheers, The Forester

Very glad to see some clarity in the main reply to the fundamental question of this thread.

[Lactodorum]

Guarantee might have been too strong a word, it was meant as a figure of speech. What I meant to say was that if people get the idea that a cache is unlikely to be in a dry stone wall then they will be less likely to spend time dismantling walls in the future.

 

So do we apply this particulr guideline too strictly? Possibly. However look at it from our point of view, when reviewing caches we don't have the benefit of seeing the actual cache site and in many cases there is very little on the cache page or in a reviewer note to go on. Maybe if we were given more information we could be more flexible.

 

Where ther is doubt I would rather err on the side of caution than risk unnecessary damage.

[+The Forester]

 

So do we apply this particular guideline too strictly?

 

When is a GC.com "guideline" not a guideline? I'd say it's a guideline when it is published in the very lengthy list of guidelines on the Geocaching website. Stealth guidelines are worthless and shouldn't be applied at all.

 

Remember that most caches in the UK are visited by non-UK geocachers. How on earth is a non-UK cacher supposed to know about stealth prohibitions on things like in-wall or near-wall caches in the UK when there is no such ban in general geocaching? It's absurd to try to displace commonsense with arbitrary local micromangement.

 

Using the above mentioned cache in the Ochils as an example, it's clear that the secret ban on near-wall or in-wall caches doesn't work and is counter-productive in geocaching terms. On my first (DNF) visit I had a slight problem that the WAAS signal was off-air and the place was surrounded by some very active towering cumulus cluds which were heavily pregnant with dry snow showers. Snow-grains like that play havoc with GPS signals and so my position-fixing wasn't particularly accurate that day. The given co-ords showed a spot about five metres perpendicular to the wall. I had no reason to believe that the cache was necessarily located exactly perpendicular to my displayed point, so it was obvious that I was going to have to search several linear metres of the wall.

 

This is where commonsense comes into the thing (though not into the arbitrary stealth "rule" which is now apparently being claimed to have some kind of Geocaching.com imprimatur). It is visually obvious that the wall is no longer in use and that an imperfect replacement of temporarily removed stones is going to have no deleterious impact upon the wall's form or function in any way. That's why I was quite happy to pick the wall to bits and rebuild it in my first quest for the cache.

 

If the non-existent GC.com prohibition actually forbad placement of caches in or near walls, then that cache would not have been permitted to exist, I am sure. It's been visited by dozens of cachers, most of whom may have had a momentary twinge of wondering whether or not to disturb the linear rockpile, but so far there has never been anyone who's tried to sneak to the prefects and try to impose this stealth non-rule which we are discussing.

 

It's absurd to try to displace commonsense by inventing and micromanaging petty secret rules and then doing the slash and burn thing on perfectly good caches.

 

There is no such geocaching ban and nor should there be. There are quite enough rules in the very lengthy list and there is no need to add to them. In fact, the list could be rationalised by eliminating some of them. The prohibition against caches near or under bridges, for example, is just silly and I'm glad to say that the approvers allow such caches to exist despite the nominal existence of the published ban.

 

Too much micromanagement, especially arbitrary and capricious cases of overcontrol, is much much worse than too little.

[+purple_pineapple]

 

Remember that most caches in the UK are visited by non-UK geocachers. How on earth is a non-UK cacher supposed to know about stealth prohibitions on things like in-wall or near-wall caches in the UK when there is no such ban in general geocaching? It's absurd to try to displace commonsense with arbitrary local micromangement.

 

Huh? most UK caches are visited by non UK cachers? I find that incredibly hard to believe!

 

Using the above mentioned cache in the Ochils as an example, it's clear that the secret ban on near-wall or in-wall caches doesn't work and is counter-productive in geocaching terms. On my first (DNF) visit I had a slight problem that the WAAS signal was off-air and the place was surrounded by some very active towering cumulus cluds which were heavily pregnant with dry snow showers. Snow-grains like that play havoc with GPS signals and so my position-fixing wasn't particularly accurate that day. The given co-ords showed a spot about five metres perpendicular to the wall. I had no reason to believe that the cache was necessarily located exactly perpendicular to my displayed point, so it was obvious that I was going to have to search several linear metres of the wall.

 

 

Again, huh? I thought I had a good grasp of the English language, but I'm afraid that was beyond me!

 

 

This is where commonsense comes into the thing (though not into the arbitrary stealth "rule" which is now apparently being claimed to have some kind of Geocaching.com imprimatur). It is visually obvious that the wall is no longer in use and that an imperfect replacement of temporarily removed stones is going to have no deleterious impact upon the wall's form or function in any way. That's why I was quite happy to pick the wall to bits and rebuild it in my first quest for the cache.

 

If the non-existent GC.com prohibition actually forbad placement of caches in or near walls, then that cache would not have been permitted to exist, I am sure. It's been visited by dozens of cachers, most of whom may have had a momentary twinge of wondering whether or not to disturb the linear rockpile, but so far there has never been anyone who's tried to sneak to the prefects and try to impose this stealth non-rule which we are discussing.

 

It's absurd to try to displace commonsense by inventing and micromanaging petty secret rules and then doing the slash and burn thing on perfectly good caches.

 

There is no such geocaching ban and nor should there be. There are quite enough rules in the very lengthy list and there is no need to add to them. In fact, the list could be rationalised by eliminating some of them. The prohibition against caches near or under bridges, for example, is just silly and I'm glad to say that the approvers allow such caches to exist despite the nominal existence of the published ban.

 

Too much micromanagement, especially arbitrary and capricious cases of overcontrol, is much much worse than too little.

 

And too much flowery language and dazzlingly long words is much much worse than too little - For the first time in my life I'm doubting my vocabulary.... what on earth does impramatur mean? have I wondered into the wrong forum?

 

Anyway, back on topic, why do we have local reviewers? surely, in order to apply local circumstances? If every cache merely had to follow the G.com guidelines, then a room full of people in the desert in Nevada could do the reviewing for the planet. Obviously, this is not a good thing (although I get the impression some might prefer this) and therefore we have local reviewers and rely on their local knowledge. DSW walls are a local circumstance, and IMHO, they should be protected as part of our heritage. So yes, the reviewers, as usual, appear to have got it right, although like SP said, I would hope an olive branch was extended to the cacher with a view to reactivating his caches.

 

Finally, as I said last time on the DSW debate - the fact it is a DSW is irrelevent - ANY cache that COULD encourage finders to dismantle objects is surely not allowed. We wodn;t go around dismantling a brick wall looking for a cache, why is a DSW any different?

[+Kryten]

I have found a few caches in what could be argued were dry stone walls but this leads to the discussion "when is a wall not a wall".

 

1. A complete and continuous dry stone wall. Definately not ok

 

2. A dry stone wall with broken sections but without parallel fence. De we want to get the blame for existing or future damage ?

 

2. A wall with broken down sections which is no longer maintained and whose function has been replaced by a parallal fence. Maybe ok ?

 

3. A wall which once served as a field boundary but around which a forest has now grown, wall no longer separates anything from anything and tree roots are in the process of breaking it down. Maybe ok ?

 

4. The tumbled down remains of a circular moorland sheep fold. Agriculture or archeology ?

 

5. The remains of a ruined cottage on a moor or in a forest.

[+The Forester]

DSW walls are a local circumstance

 

Local to which countries?

 

I've travelled to, lived in, and worked in 43 countries and I'm having great difficulty in thinking of any which do not have dry stone walls somewhere. Singapore, Cameroun and Gabon the only ones I can think of. All the others have dry stone walls.

 

If GC.com thought that caches in dry stone walls ought to be banned then they would ban them globally. It would be absurd to impose such a ban only in countries which have dry stone walls!

 

There is no such ban and there is no need for such a ban.

[+The Forester]

I have found a few caches in what could be argued were dry stone walls but this leads to the discussion "when is a wall not a wall".

 

1. A complete and continuous dry stone wall. Definately not ok

 

2. A dry stone wall with broken sections but without parallel fence. De we want to get the blame for existing or future damage ?

 

2. A wall with broken down sections which is no longer maintained and whose function has been replaced by a parallal fence. Maybe ok ?

 

3. A wall which once served as a field boundary but around which a forest has now grown, wall no longer separates anything from anything and tree roots are in the process of breaking it down. Maybe ok ?

 

4. The tumbled down remains of a circular moorland sheep fold. Agriculture or archeology ?

 

5. The remains of a ruined cottage on a moor or in a forest.

 

Case 1: Clearly a matter of common sense.

Case 2: Maybe OK, maybe not. Commonsense required.

Case 3: Probably OK. Commonsense will dictate which.

Case 4: An interesting case. There already exists a rule in the case of it being archeological, so no further rulemaking is required. Finding out if it's archeological is very easy for us in Scotland because of the huge database at the RCAHMS website. If it's agricultural, then it's just another rural cache. No problem there and no need for further rulemaking.

Case 5: I can think of a lovely cache in the Highlands which is exactly that. It's an excellent cache which does not contravene the spirit or letter of the rules. No need to ban it or to devise further rules to exclude it from being a legitimate cache.

 

In each of the five cases the recurring theme is that commonsense overrides rulemaking.

[Team 'James W']

In each of the five cases the recurring theme is that commonsense overrides rulemaking.

 

..Although in a world where commonsense is a precious commodity, and even then is open to interpretation, one requires guidelines, policies or rules of engagement.

[+Teasel]

Bottom line is: is the landowner happy? Because when an unhappy landowner starts loudly complaining about damage to their drystone wall, I expect that any squeaking from geocachers saying "but it was in the spillage" or "but it was a mortar topped wall" will get drowned out by the demands that geocaching should no longer be allowed to enjoy the benefits of being self-regulating.

 

Forester's comments about his own walls surprise me, as I'd hitherto assumed that no sane landowner would ever give permission for a cache to be placed inside his/her wall. It's easy to come up with a list of caches placed in SAMs and SSSIs with permission, but can anyone come up with an actual example of a UK cache placed in a dry stone wall with permission from a landowner who is not themselves a geocacher?

 

So, while Lactodorum is of course correct that this DSW cache does not directly break any GC.com rules, I would suggest there is good reason to assume that the following rule has been broken: "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." IMHO, in most cases, that's the only rule that really matters!

 

I think it would be quite reasonable for the reviewers to unlist any cache where they believe that geocaching could be damaged if the landowner got wind of the cache!

[+The Forester]

..Although in a world where commonsense is a precious commodity, and even then is open to interpretation, one requires guidelines, policies or rules of engagement.

 

Yes, I understand the need for rules and what the are for.

 

My point is that GC.com does not have a rule against cache placement in or near walls and does not need one.

 

Arbitrary and capricious enforcement of non-existent rules is a sure sign of bad policing. It is what led to to the inappropriate punishment of a wholly innocent cache which is not even alleged to have broken any rules, either genuinely existing GC.com rules or phantom rules of extraneous third party organisations.

[Team 'James W']

Yes, I understand the need for rules and what the are for.

 

Sorry, didn't mean for that to sound patronising.

 

Arbitrary and capricious enforcement of non-existent rules is a sure sign of bad policing.

 

..And I really do agree with you. But I don't have the benefit of experience in owning any Dry Stone Walls like you, and can only rely on my experience of coming across them in the outdoors. And as such, in my opinion, there does need to be a rule. Not only to promote fairness and consistency, but to protect what does seem to be a potential issue for our country.

 

..and I guess that's the summary of my opinion. Ultimately I don't know what the correct answer is to this, but I think I would be happy for a combination of Reviewers/GC.com/GAGB to decide.

 

James

Edited June 13, 2006 by Team 'James W'

[+CrazyL200]

We did a cache a while ago, that turned out to be in the splliage of a collapsed dry stone wall - I wouldn't let the kids near it because it was to unsafe for them.

Where a wall has collapsed, further collapse could happen just by standing (or leaning) on the wrong stone or by inadvertantly moving stones to search for the cache.

 

Any dry stone wall that is not maintained could be an accident waiting to happen for kids or animals.

 

Err on the safe side, stay away from them. For that reason (as well as all the heritage / landowner issues etc...) I think they should be banned. I like my kids the way they are.

[+CrazyL200]

What the reviewers have done is absolutely right and in no way out of line, I think the cache owner is lucky he still has an account!

 

If somebody choses to attack other cachers, ignore moderators/reviewer queries about caches, and keep re-enabling them after thay have been disabled, should be duly punished. What example would it set to let things like this go?

 

Totally agree. As a moderator on another forum, the warnigs would have been just as severe for public attacks - where's there's smoke. there's fire, and you can bet there's worse in emails flying in the background.

[Deceangi]

..Although in a world where commonsense is a precious commodity, and even then is open to interpretation, one requires guidelines, policies or rules of engagement.

 

Yes, I understand the need for rules and what the are for.

 

My point is that GC.com does not have a rule against cache placement in or near walls and does not need one.

 

Arbitrary and capricious enforcement of non-existent rules is a sure sign of bad policing. It is what led to to the inappropriate punishment of a wholly innocent cache which is not even alleged to have broken any rules, either genuinely existing GC.com rules or phantom rules of extraneous third party organisations.

 

the cache in question was actualy Archived because of this Log as the Forester is fully aware breached GC's Terms of Use in that it makes a"Personal Attack"

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

And also

 

(j) "Stalk," harass, or otherwise harm another Site user.

 

This discussion is about Dry Stone Walls and the affects that caches placed in them can have on them and the whole of the UK GC community. Please do not go off on tangents, to allow others to discuss the issue who have yet to post their thoughts and comments.

 

Deceangi

[+Teasel]

a wholly innocent cache which is not even alleged to have broken any rules

I allege that the cache breaches the following GC.com rule... "You agree not to: <snip> post <snip> any content that is <snip> abusive, harassing <snip> defamatory <snip> or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity" ...because of the owner's failure to delete his log from June 11th. As you point out, the cache location does not breach the rules, only the owner's abuse of the logging facility. So if the offending log were removed, I see no reason the cache could not be reinstated.

 

Of course, since the reason for archiving the cache was abusive postings, it could be argued that the reviewers would have been justified in completely removing the cache from geocaching.com, so that the abusive logs were no longer publically visible. But we seem to have reviewers with great maturity and restraint, who prefer their actions to remain open to public scrutiny.

 

Personally I think that given the lack of respect shown by hadescaveman, he should consider himself lucky that he still has an account!

[+CrazyL200]

That's why I was quite happy to pick the wall to bits and rebuild it in my first quest for the cache.

 

the fact it is a DSW is irrelevent - ANY cache that COULD encourage finders to dismantle objects is surely not allowed. We wodn;t go around dismantling a brick wall looking for a cache, why is a DSW any different?

 

Not sure any wall (or object) owner, dry stone wall or otherwise, would be very happy at seeing their property systematically dismantled.

 

Not everyone has the skills required to rebuild one either.

[+Andy&BeckyRiley]

I think it would be quite reasonable for the reviewers to unlist any cache where they believe that geocaching could be damaged if the landowner got wind of the cache!

 

So when you did Lord of the Rings - Quest for the ring of power, 'One of the best constructed multicaches anywhere'. Did you think to mention to the reviewers that 2 of the micros where in dry stone walls?

 

Andy

[+Teasel]

So when you did Lord of the Rings - Quest for the ring of power, 'One of the best constructed multicaches anywhere'. Did you think to mention to the reviewers that 2 of the micros where in dry stone walls?

No. My log says "A brilliant cache, spoilt only by the placement of two of the micros in the middle of dry stone walls - particularly worrying as this is deservedly a high-profile, flagship multicache", but at the time I decided not to separately report the cache to the reviewers (I have mentioned the cache on one or two subsequent DSW forum threads but, AFAIR, never directly to the reviewers).

 

In fact, the only DSW cache which I have ever referred to the reviewers is Get Your Hair Cut. The wall in question was on an SSSI, in a National Park, on land owned by the NT, and in a wall owned by a farmer called Mr Cooper (who, given his reputation, I guessed somewhat unlikely to have given his consent).

 

So, for "LOTR", I allowed the fact that nobody else had seen fit to log any discomfort about the placement of the caches to silence me. However for "GYHC", the easy option of keeping quiet seemed just plain dangerous to the future of geocaching, so I felt I had no option but to stick my head above the parapet! Of course, I (unsuccessfully) attempted to persuade the cache owner to relocate the cache first, before taking it to "the authorities". The reaction from the cache owner was understandably rather negative, but the consequences of inaction could well have been the combined wrath of Peak Park, the NT and Mr Cooper, which would have been somewhat worse!

[+Haggis Hunter]

Drystone walls are quite literally close to my heart. I have between one and two kilometres of them right here at Forester Towers, in varying states of repair. For most of the lengths of the disused walls, there could/would be no possible objection to a cache or caches being sensibly hidden inside. I did get a bit miffed when a sleepy lorry driver parked a 32 tonne artic inside one of them at very high speed one night, but a wee bit of tupperware in a sensibly considered place in a suitable bit of wall would be no problem!

 

Forester's comments about his own walls surprise me, as I'd hitherto assumed that no sane landowner would ever give permission for a cache to be placed inside his/her wall. It's easy to come up with a list of caches placed in SAMs and SSSIs with permission, but can anyone come up with an actual example of a UK cache placed in a dry stone wall with permission from a landowner who is not themselves a geocacher?

 

..And I really do agree with you. But I don't have the benefit of experience in owning any Dry Stone Walls like you, and can only rely on my experience of coming across them in the outdoors.

I may have missed it, but I can't see where The Forester has said that he owns Forester Towers or the dry stone walls. He may well be a tenant just like I am in my house? So to presume from what he has said that he is the land owner with the information he has presented so far would be incorrect.

[Team 'James W']

...So to presume from what he has said that he is the land owner with the information he has presented so far would be incorrect.

 

Not exactly the most bizarre assumption ever made though, is it? Fair enough though. I change my statement to

 

"...I don't have the benefit of living amongst and having any property I may reside on being enclosed by Dry Stone Walls...."

 

Not meant to be facetious, so please don't take it to be.

[+The Forester]

in my opinion, there does need to be a rule. Not only to promote fairness and consistency, but to protect what does seem to be a potential issue for our country.

James

 

That is a perfectly valid opinion, but at present there is no rule against caches within walls, either with or without mortar.

 

It was the wrong presumption that such a GC.com rule exists which caused the problem and its consequent silliness.

 

GC.com has quite enough rules. The list of them runs to over 4,500 words. We don't need any more and we certainly don't need the arbitrary imposition of non-existent rules.

[+Orchards Finest]

Since we are all cachers perhaps one thing we all have in common is our love and, I would hope, respect for the beautiful countryside we have around us.

 

A DSW that is in a state of disrepair is perhaps not a thing of beauty but it is a thriving habitat in its own right. We might see the 'scary' spider, or 'ugly' lizard rather than the fluffy bunny or majestic raptor but many of the former are losing their habitat at an alarming rate. DSWs provide nesting sites for birds and small mammals, surfaces for moss and lichen, and help to combat soil erosion.

 

In my opinion these walls (and there spillage) should be avoided as cache hiding places. An inexperienced searcher eager to find the cache may not stop at taking 'just one more stone' off of the wall. Even turning a stone and placing it back incorrectly can cut off light and kill lichen which has taken many years to grow. Hiding in spoil is perhaps as bad since it might be seen to encourage wall dismantling.

 

 

For most of the lengths of the disused walls, there could/would be no possible objection to a cache or caches being sensibly hidden inside.

 

 

A sensibly hidden cache may not be retreived sensibly and is often replaced in a slightly different location

 

With regards to local guidelines we have a local code. The Countryside Code suggests that we should leave property as we find it and that clambering over walls is detrimental to the countryside. I would consider pulling stones off a wall to be as bad as climbing over it.