Are The Rules That Important

[+The Forester]

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.

 

Yes. There are several things the polizei could have done instead of doing the slash and burn thing. They attacked the cache as a way of attacking the cache's creator. That was inappropriate behaviour and is a disgrace to caching.

 

They acted out of prejudice against the cacher, not in response to the cache's legitimacy. Prejudging a cache based upon the cache's creator is a classic symptom of prejudice, which in turn is a sign of narrow-mindedness. That's the antithesis of the normal open-mindedness, and inclusionism which is the basis of the altruism which is at the heart of geocaching.

 

They could have done so much better that to lash out at a perfectly good cache.

 

If they have a problem with the absence of GC.com rules prohibiting caches near masonry, then they should take that upwith GC.com, not archive a perfectly valid and apparently safe and enjoyable cache.

[+The Forester]

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.

 

Yes, the countryside code's a good 'un, but it's existence is an argument against, not for, further rulemaking by GC.com.

 

Most cachers are conscientious about replacing caches and their concealment material. Imposing yet more rules is unlikely to reduce the incidence of breaches of that commonsense part of caching.

[+Geo-Kate]

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.

 

Yes, the countryside code's a good 'un, but it's existence is an argument against, not for, further rulemaking by GC.com.

 

Most cachers are conscientious about replacing caches and their concealment material. Imposing yet more rules is unlikely to reduce the incidence of breaches of that commonsense part of caching.

 

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.

 

Yes, the countryside code's a good 'un, but it's existence is an argument against, not for, further rulemaking by GC.com.

 

Most cachers are conscientious about replacing caches and their concealment material. Imposing yet more rules is unlikely to reduce the incidence of breaches of that commonsense part of caching.

 

You have often used the word "commonsense" in your postings on this subject, assuming every person out there has the same "commonsense" as you.

You may be excellent at dismantelling DSWs and rebuilding them with no ill effects on the wall's construction or the wildlife living within. Who is to say the next eager cacher is as careful as you, and manages to destroy a few metres or delicate walling?

 

To tell eveybody just to use their common sense doesn't work. That's why rules exist in the firls place.

 

The reason the Mods chose to archive all of the said caches was out of punishment for abusive comments about another cacher, and indeed, the mods themselves. What would a polite e-mail (which may have been sent, anyway) done? As I said before, many belive he is lucky to have an account anymore.

[+Orchards Finest]

 

Yes, the countryside code's a good 'un, but it's existence is an argument against, not for, further rulemaking by GC.com.

 

 

But don't the existing GC.com Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines state

 

'In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks (The Countryside?) in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc. (Country?)). '

 

The Countryside Code has been around since the 1950's (although it was renamed from the Country Code in 2004). Since this is an existing (prior to GC.com) local code shouldn't it be used by the UK reviewers (although a different version exists for Scotland) when they decide on the placement of caches?

[+Andy&BeckyRiley]

 

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.

 

Fully understand. We did the first 3 parts of it before it got disabled and I didn't say anything either.

 

Personally I would be in favour of a blanket ban on dry stone wall caches, except where the permission of the land/wall owner had been sought, and this permission had been verified. I know this would restrict the number of hiding places but round my way (Yorkshire) there are lots of dry stone walls, and I have yet to come across a cache in one.

 

Andy

[Lactodorum]

Yes. There are several things the polizei could have done instead of doing the slash and burn thing. They attacked the cache as a way of attacking the cache's creator. That was inappropriate behaviour and is a disgrace to caching.

 

They acted out of prejudice against the cacher, not in response to the cache's legitimacy. Prejudging a cache based upon the cache's creator is a classic symptom of prejudice, which in turn is a sign of narrow-mindedness. That's the antithesis of the normal open-mindedness, and inclusionism which is the basis of the altruism which is at the heart of geocaching.

 

They could have done so much better that to lash out at a perfectly good cache.

 

If they have a problem with the absence of GC.com rules prohibiting caches near masonry, then they should take that upwith GC.com, not archive a perfectly valid and apparently safe and enjoyable cache.

 

As a "Humble Seeker After Truth" it might be better to hold off from accusing me of being "politzei" and untertaking "slash and burn" and of exhibiting classic signs of "prejudice" and of "narrow mindedness" etc. without knowing the full background to my decision to archive the caches in question. Deceangi has earlier explained the publicly available information behind the "Slash and Burn" and all I would add again is that I took this unusual action, not for the caches themselves but for the blatantly provocative words on the owner's logs.

 

What you don't know, and I'm not going to disclose private information here in a public forum, is what went on beforehand. Until this episode I did not know this cacher and therefore it would not have been possible for me to be prejudiced against him/her, even if that were my normal style (which I hope it's not).

 

I have a reasonably thick skin and can take reasonable criticism but there are limits. I rarely exercise my Moderator's power to censor posts so please keep the discussion civilised. (Just to clarify, I am willing to let existing posts stand unchanged, I just don't want the discussion to "go downhill").

[Team 'James W']

<drawing a line on this for me, following Lacto's post. I think I've already indicated my opinion enough.>

Edited June 13, 2006 by Team 'James W'

[+Sensei TSKC]

I never realised post #8 would have caused this.

 

But then again, I wanted to know!

[+Teasel]

They could have done so much better that to lash out at a perfectly good cache.

I think you're in danger of anthropomorphising a tupperware box!

 

Maybe it's a disgrace that poor innocent GCPF0X was unfairly targeted by the authorities, when in reality all its problems were simply the tragic result of having an abusive father. Maybe rather than being branded as unworthy by the authorities, it just needed care and support, maybe even adoption? But, frankly, I personally won't be losing too much sleep over the harshness of the imposed sentence!

 

Right now, we've got over 11,000 caches in this country alone, with over a quarter of a million worldwide. The figures are doubling roughly every year. So, sorry, but if that's his attitude, we can do without hadescaveman and we can do without his caches!

[+The Forester]

But don't the existing GC.com Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines state

 

'In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.'

 

Murricanes are festooned with state park regulations and constitutional stuff like the right to arm bears. They even give bears wide-brimmed hats in their parks and put them on posters and give them stage-names like "Smokey". That's a Murricane thing and is not relevant to the wider free world.

 

GC.com has not translated that stuff into a prohibition against geocaching within or near masonry.

 

They may be stupid, but they're not crazy. (or did I get that the wrong way round?)

[+CrazyL200]

The phrase common sense has been used and refered to here several times. At no time (other than one of my previous posts in this thread) has safety been specifically mentioned. An un-maintained DSW that is already collapsing, or starting to collapse, is a dangerous situation for kids and animals.

 

Yes, we, as (hopefully) responsible parents, wouldn't let our kids near a wall with loose stones. But accidents happen in the briefest of moments.

 

Also, I would hazard a guess that every DSW (or any wall, for that matter) belongs to somebody, so placing of caches in/on them requires the owners permission. It's already been noted that one particular farmer would be a formidable force to answer to if he found a cache in one of his walls.

 

How would any of us react if a cache were placed in/on our property and then systimatically dismantled over the course of say, 12 months, by searching cachers.

 

As said before, just because there may be experienced tradesmen in our midst, that doesn't give us the right to dismantle anothers property in the name of Geocaching, just because it can put back together again.

 

I still think the reviewers were correct in their approach to the cache owner who obviously made much more of the situation in the privacy of emails etc... compared to what was said in public. The comments on the cache pages are nothing more than blackmail. In my time as a moderator on another forum, the public abuse / arguementative posting is never as bad as the emails and PMs that are hurled at the "Forum Police" as we're often refered to as.

 

Back to the title, yes rules are important, it's what keeps our civilisation on the straight and narrow and gives us the parameters to operate within. They may need changing from time to time, but breaking them because they're not agreed with is no excuse.

 

Rant over ... and sorry for being a bit repetative ... - I'll go away now.

[+Jaz666]

I was thinking over the DSW paradox today whilst out caching (where I found another cache placed inside one, no I don't want to name and shame).

 

We are trying to get the message across to new cachers that it's not worth even looking for a cache inside a wall, as they won't have been placed there in the first place. Indeed, all new cachers get a friendly welcome EMail pointing them towards the GAGB guidelines.

The trouble is, there already exists a number of caches inside walls.

Eventually Mr and Mrs new cacher are going to come across one of these, and assume that the guideline isn't really rigidly enforced, leading to them examining walls more frequently.

 

I can see three ways we, as a community, could start to reverse the situation.

 

1) Name and Shame - report all problem caches to the mods - very bad idea, as this could lead to all sorts of arguments and bad feelings all round.

2) Community Education - if you come across a problem cache, politley send the owner a message requesting they rethink the hide. Perhaps a generic document could be generated for such a purpose.

3) Mass Email - The mods arrange for an EMail to go to all UK cachers.

 

I personally think Number 2 would work the best. By the time the message gets across the whole community (not just those who frequent the forums), we might have had time to get Groundspeak to implement "local guidelines" for our area.

 

Just my 2-pence-worth.

[+maxkim]

Having seen at least two walls trashed by cachers I support any action which keeps caches away from DSW's and the guide lines should be amended to this end. I agree with the mods. They do a great job with little thanks and without them the game would not be what it is.!!!

[+Captain Gore-tex]

I was thinking over the DSW paradox today whilst out caching (where I found another cache placed inside one, no I don't want to name and shame).

 

We are trying to get the message across to new cachers that it's not worth even looking for a cache inside a wall, as they won't have been placed there in the first place. Indeed, all new cachers get a friendly welcome EMail pointing them towards the GAGB guidelines.

The trouble is, there already exists a number of caches inside walls.

Eventually Mr and Mrs new cacher are going to come across one of these, and assume that the guideline isn't really rigidly enforced, leading to them examining walls more frequently.

 

I can see three ways we, as a community, could start to reverse the situation.

 

1) Name and Shame - report all problem caches to the mods - very bad idea, as this could lead to all sorts of arguments and bad feelings all round.

2) Community Education - if you come across a problem cache, politley send the owner a message requesting they rethink the hide. Perhaps a generic document could be generated for such a purpose.

3) Mass Email - The mods arrange for an EMail to go to all UK cachers.

 

I personally think Number 2 would work the best. By the time the message gets across the whole

community (not just those who frequent the forums), we might have had time to get Groundspeak to implement "local guidelines" for our area.

 

Just my 2-pence-worth.

 

Trouble is when you try number 2 and do not get a level reasoned response from the owner. You have no option other than number 1 unless you ignore the situation, but you wouldn't have emailed the owner unless you were trying to do your own little bit for caching in the first place so ignoring it isn't a great option either.

What is clear from this thread is that there is divided opinion on the subject. Whilst this exists in the abscence of a clear unarguable statement from the UK reviewers there will always be people who place caches in or near a DSW. I think we have that clarity now from our two current adjudicators so to answer my own question posed at the start of this thread, yes they are important and we all know what they are in the UK.

[+Chaotica_UK]

As one of the last visitors to attempt a number of this cachers' caches IMO the action taken by admin was justified, the cacher brought on the admin action to archive by posting and accusing another cacher in public by name and not replying to a request for further information. The particular cache that caused the problem I checked with the cacher that the cache was in place before visiting and separately emailed him afterwards to explain where I searched. I never had the courtesy of a reply for the second email.

 

Looking at the bigger picture we are all responsible for maintaining our caches, and the majority of us do without question but in this case almost all the caches owned by this owner had reported problems on logs, from missing caches, water logged, & coordinates way off, all which were left unmaintained for many months afterwards.

 

Its shame because some of the caches were in cracking places.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Chaotica_UK

[+The Spokes]

It worries me that someone had all there Caches shut off just because they called MR Tex petty and narrow minded.

Come clean mate you have been called worse than this in your life?

Does it bother you that much.

Tell the guys you are big enough to take it and tell them reactivate those Caches.

What has been done just proves his point I think.

[+Simply Paul]

A simple question for our esteemed reviewers - If the 'I'm disabling this cache because...' logs on the archived cache pages were deleted and a polite request for the caches (other than the DSW-related one) to be reactivated, would they be, or has this guy burnt his bridges privately?

[Lactodorum]

A simple question for our esteemed reviewers - If the 'I'm disabling this cache because...' logs on the archived cache pages were deleted and a polite request for the caches (other than the DSW-related one) to be reactivated, would they be, or has this guy burnt his bridges privately?

 

I think that this question, while totally valid, is better answered privately rather than in a public forum. I'll e-mail you .

[+Teasel]

I can see three ways we, as a community, could start to reverse the situation.

 

1) Name and Shame - report all problem caches to the mods - very bad idea, as this could lead to all sorts of arguments and bad feelings all round.

2) Community Education - if you come across a problem cache, politley send the owner a message requesting they rethink the hide. Perhaps a generic document could be generated for such a purpose.

3) Mass Email - The mods arrange for an EMail to go to all UK cachers.

I'd say that option 2 is always the best first course of action. But what if it fails? Option 1 may well cause bad feelings in geocachers who refuse to listen to polite requests, but failing to carry out option 1 could easily result in a blanket ban of geocaching over large areas of the UK. I know which I'd rather risk!

 

You can bet your GPS that if we fail to self-regulate ourselves effectively, then regulation will be forced upon us. Actually hunting for geocaches may still be a "stealthy" pursuit, but geocaching is no longer an "underground" hobby. Most major landowners will be aware of it at some level, and it's even got official mentions in government policy sent out to local authorities by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We can happily go round in circles asking whether the reviewers' opinion about DSWs is a "rule" or just a "guideline"; but just how many of us would like it to become a law?!

 

Option 3 has been suggested before, but there was no obvious mechanism for sending out a mass email, and the geocaching community is growing so fast that it'd have to be frequently resent. So, instead, the UK approvers opted to send out this welcome message to everyone when they find their first UK cache. Over 5500 welcome messages have so far been sent out (that's about 1 welcome email every hour!), so hopefully the general awareness out there is pretty good, even amongst the vast majority of geocachers who do not frequent the forums.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Teasel

[+Haggis Hunter]

I have just finished a phone conversation with a representative from Historic Scotland. I am looking for permission to place a cache on their land.

When I initialy said what I was wanting, I immediately got questioned about a cache that is on their land within a glen in Scotland. (I won't give any more details on the location than that). It turns out that the cache may either be hidden in a wall or so close to a wall that she has had it reported to her that people are searching inside the wall and causing damage.

As she had serious concerns about this and to keep geocaching on the correct side of a major land owner/manager within Scotland, I have gave her my word that I would pass on her concerns to the approvers, which I have done.

 

After my conversation about my own cache being placed I am sure that with careful negotiations between the cache owner, approvers and Historic Scotland, the particular cache in question would be allowed to stay if a new location was agreed in advance. Which is what will happen with mine, once a few other wee problems are queried and hopefully resolved.

[+Guanajuato]

Dragging a topic up from many moons ago!

 

We've just had a little discussion over on the NorthWest forum about caches in dry stone walls, which went off onto local guidelines in general. We all agreed (including a tame reviewer ) that the current GS Cache placement guidelines pages doesn't give a clear indication that there may be additional local guidelines.

 

Rather than just whinge about those pesky yanks, I've put a topic on their feedback forum, suggesting an amendment to the guidelines page and linking to local groups and/or reviewer details.

 

If anyone feels the urge to make the fact that local guidelines are in place, but not well known, feel free.

[+maxkim]

I agree, and great to recall all those names from so log ago... where have some of them gone? now the score is 4 on dry stone walls found trashed by cachers