Is it vandalism...

[Dinoprophet]

I found a fake bolt in a ladder bridge on a motorcross bike trail.

A hole was drilled and the bolt was added, trouble was, it was

too tight for me to separate the two halves of the bolt to

get to the log book.

In this case, the bolt was not holding anything, planks were

laid over a wooden ladder to make a bridge for the motocross

bikes. Where does one obtain such an item?

I know the thread's a year old, but this post presents a new case.

 

The bolt, not so much a problem. Drilling a hole is very much vandalism. Hopefully the hider either owns the trail or used an existing hole.

This is a rough woods area behind a YMCA

A motocross club has made trails using ladders covered with boards

for bridges. All very rough and unpainted. No one is going to care.

I'd care if it was mine. Especially if it were in a load-bearing part of the structure.

 

I should have included the caveat of having permission. Obviously that wouldn't be vandalism either.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Here is a photo of a cache the any one should consider vandalism

I found this cache a few weeks ago. I would post a SBA but the last time I posted a SBA the local cachers went nuts.

 

<SNIP>

I'd have to know quite a bit more about it before I jump on the vandalism bandwagon.

 

The cache was place last March, The hole was drilled for the cache, there is not reason for the hole to be there other than to hide a cache. It is drilled into a single piece of lumber that is part of the support structure for the bench in the park. The bolt was painted to make it look old.

 

If you look at the photo you can see the wood inside of the hole is not weathered.

Redwoods cache

I still can't say that it was vandalism.

From the Guidlines

 

Off-Limits caches

 

Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

 

BTW the hider did not use an existing hole. You can see in the photo that the Redwood inside the hole is not weathered. If it was weathered it would be the same color as the surface of the Redwood. I know the park that this cache is in, it is the third cache that has been placed there in the past four years. The bench in question is several years old.

Edited August 23, 2007 by JohnnyVegas

[+sbell111]

Here is a photo of a cache the any one should consider vandalism

I found this cache a few weeks ago. I would post a SBA but the last time I posted a SBA the local cachers went nuts.

<SNIP>

I'd have to know quite a bit more about it before I jump on the vandalism bandwagon.

The cache was place last March, The hole was drilled for the cache, there is not reason for the hole to be there other than to hide a cache. It is drilled into a single piece of lumber that is part of the support structure for the bench in the park. The bolt was painted to make it look old.

If you look at the photo you can see the wood inside of the hole is not weathered.

Redwoods cache

I still can't say that it was vandalism.

sbell... THEY DRILLED A HOLE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY!! You don't think drilling a hole in someone else's property is vandalism?

 

If your argument is that you think the hider might have used an existing hole instead of drilling a new one, or if the hider got permission from the owner first, then I'll agree with you. But drilling a hole in something that belongs to someone else without permission would be considered vandalism by almost any LEO you ask.

With the info that you provided, I have no idea if they had permission to drill the hole. I assume that they did. Therefore, my assumption is that it wasn't vandalism. Edited August 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+Lutehawk]

From the Guidlines

 

Off-Limits caches

 

Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

 

BTW the hider did not use an existing hole. You can see in the photo that the Redwood inside the hole is not weathered. If it was weathered it would be the same color as the surface of the Redwood. I know the park that this cache is in, it is the third cache that has been placed there in the past four years. The bench in question is several years old.

 

This was one of the first things that came to my mind. Plus the whole permission thing.

 

Now I forget if anyone has stated what the sign was ie a stop sign or some other municipal sign.

In which case I would be extreamly suprised that permission was given.

 

From dictionary.com

van·dal·ism

n. Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property

 

Thus if permission was not obtained or owner of cache did not own said sign it is vandalism. It would be safe to assume that any Municipal sign should be off limits to hide a cache at in this way.

[+sbell111]

... Now I forget if anyone has stated what the sign was ie a stop sign or some other municipal sign.

In which case I would be extreamly suprised that permission was given.

 

From dictionary.com

van·dal·ism

n. Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property

 

Thus if permission was not obtained or owner of cache did not own said sign it is vandalism. It would be safe to assume that any Municipal sign should be off limits to hide a cache at in this way.

I think that we're talking about a bench in some kind of park, now, rather than the original subject of this thread. It's unknown whether permission was received. Edited August 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+Lutehawk]

thanks Sbell. I would hope they did get permission. With it being a bench I know I would be a bit less concerned than if it were a municipal sign.

 

Makes me wonder though If you were to "donate" an item like a bench and pay for the costs of having it installed if they would let you have a cache as a part of it?

[+sbell111]

thanks Sbell. I would hope they did get permission. With it being a bench I know I would be a bit less concerned than if it were a municipal sign.

 

Makes me wonder though If you were to "donate" an item like a bench and pay for the costs of having it installed if they would let you have a cache as a part of it?

I don't know. I guess that the park could still decide to approve it's alteration, if they wanted to.

 

I know of a cache where an ambitious cacher got approval to alter a piece of 'industrial artwork' so it now holds a cache container. Anything is possible if you can sell it to the appropriate person.

[+Renegade Knight]

...sbell... THEY DRILLED A HOLE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY!! You don't think drilling a hole in someone else's property is vandalism?

 

If your argument is that you think the hider might have used an existing hole instead of drilling a new one, or if the hider got permission from the owner first, then I'll agree with you. But drilling a hole in something that belongs to someone else without permission would be considered vandalism by almost any LEO you ask.

 

You, sbell111 and I agree. We just don't know the permission status of that cache.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Here is a photo of a cache the any one should consider vandalism

I found this cache a few weeks ago. I would post a SBA but the last time I posted a SBA the local cachers went nuts.

<SNIP>

I'd have to know quite a bit more about it before I jump on the vandalism bandwagon.

The cache was place last March, The hole was drilled for the cache, there is not reason for the hole to be there other than to hide a cache. It is drilled into a single piece of lumber that is part of the support structure for the bench in the park. The bolt was painted to make it look old.

If you look at the photo you can see the wood inside of the hole is not weathered.

Redwoods cache

I still can't say that it was vandalism.

sbell... THEY DRILLED A HOLE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY!! You don't think drilling a hole in someone else's property is vandalism?

 

If your argument is that you think the hider might have used an existing hole instead of drilling a new one, or if the hider got permission from the owner first, then I'll agree with you. But drilling a hole in something that belongs to someone else without permission would be considered vandalism by almost any LEO you ask.

 

Be careful about getting too high on your horse. If you want to get technical, nearly every cache that is placed could be considered vandalism. One must look at the situation realistically.. Is the hole that's drilled in an old piece of wood that noone cares about? Context is very important with these issues. What is the context here?

[+Ambrosia]

Here is a photo of a cache the any one should consider vandalism

I found this cache a few weeks ago. I would post a SBA but the last time I posted a SBA the local cachers went nuts.

<SNIP>

I'd have to know quite a bit more about it before I jump on the vandalism bandwagon.

The cache was place last March, The hole was drilled for the cache, there is not reason for the hole to be there other than to hide a cache. It is drilled into a single piece of lumber that is part of the support structure for the bench in the park. The bolt was painted to make it look old.

If you look at the photo you can see the wood inside of the hole is not weathered.

Redwoods cache

I still can't say that it was vandalism.

sbell... THEY DRILLED A HOLE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY!! You don't think drilling a hole in someone else's property is vandalism?

 

If your argument is that you think the hider might have used an existing hole instead of drilling a new one, or if the hider got permission from the owner first, then I'll agree with you. But drilling a hole in something that belongs to someone else without permission would be considered vandalism by almost any LEO you ask.

 

Be careful about getting too high on your horse. If you want to get technical, nearly every cache that is placed could be considered vandalism. One must look at the situation realistically.. Is the hole that's drilled in an old piece of wood that noone cares about? Context is very important with these issues. What is the context here?

Technically, Groundspeak wouldn't allow this. It doesn't matter if it's an old piece of wood "that noone cares about", or a stick that you found under a tree, etc. You cannot alter something that is at the cache site in that way. If you brought it in from you property and placed it at the site, that should be a different issue.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Here is a photo of a cache the any one should consider vandalism

I found this cache a few weeks ago. I would post a SBA but the last time I posted a SBA the local cachers went nuts.

<SNIP>

I'd have to know quite a bit more about it before I jump on the vandalism bandwagon.

The cache was place last March, The hole was drilled for the cache, there is not reason for the hole to be there other than to hide a cache. It is drilled into a single piece of lumber that is part of the support structure for the bench in the park. The bolt was painted to make it look old.

If you look at the photo you can see the wood inside of the hole is not weathered.

Redwoods cache

I still can't say that it was vandalism.

sbell... THEY DRILLED A HOLE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY!! You don't think drilling a hole in someone else's property is vandalism?

 

If your argument is that you think the hider might have used an existing hole instead of drilling a new one, or if the hider got permission from the owner first, then I'll agree with you. But drilling a hole in something that belongs to someone else without permission would be considered vandalism by almost any LEO you ask.

 

Be careful about getting too high on your horse. If you want to get technical, nearly every cache that is placed could be considered vandalism. One must look at the situation realistically.. Is the hole that's drilled in an old piece of wood that noone cares about? Context is very important with these issues. What is the context here?

Technically, Groundspeak wouldn't allow this. It doesn't matter if it's an old piece of wood "that noone cares about", or a stick that you found under a tree, etc. You cannot alter something that is at the cache site in that way. If you brought it in from you property and placed it at the site, that should be a different issue.

BYO or permission from the owner is no difference. Either way, if the cache placer had specific permission, either by virtue of it being their own property or having been told they could do so by the owner or manager, it would not be "vandalism." Whether GC would approve it or not is another subject and probably hinges on how it is sold to the reviewer.

 

As far as "no one cares about...", that is pretty subjective. In technicality if only one person "cares about" it, (Like even one "cache policeperson"), then the argument fails and we would have to assume it is no go. that is a pretty horrible standard to try to meet. If that is the standard, GC should shut down immediately lest the whiners whine.

 

Actually the only party that "cares about" it that is relevant is the party that owns or manages the property. Others that would post SBA without knowing the permission status for sure are no more than busy bodies.

 

However, I still stand by my earlier comments regarding the original question. placing a cache that requires someone to engage in behaviour that APPEARS to be vandalism (like loosening attachment hardware on a sign) is not appropriate for our sport.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Thanks for pointing that out sbell...didn't read the date.

[+Glenn]

I'd care if it was mine. Especially if it were in a load-bearing part of the structure.

 

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that before you. I'm not a builder so I wouldn't be able to tell you where not to drill or how large is too large of a hole. I also find it disturbing that someone would replace the normal bolt in a guard rail with a hollowed out one. I assume that because guard rails are safety equipment they are over engineered. I assume that by changing the design (replacing a solid bolt with a hollow bolt) you are also changing how it will function in an accident. I am not a safety technician so all I can do is assume. I'm sure the hider is assuming the same thing and hoping that his hollow bolt is never actually put to a real life test.

[+IDLookout]

I'd care if it was mine. Especially if it were in a load-bearing part of the structure.

 

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that before you. I'm not a builder so I wouldn't be able to tell you where not to drill or how large is too large of a hole. I also find it disturbing that someone would replace the normal bolt in a guard rail with a hollowed out one. I assume that because guard rails are safety equipment they are over engineered. I assume that by changing the design (replacing a solid bolt with a hollow bolt) you are also changing how it will function in an accident. I am not a safety technician so all I can do is assume. I'm sure the hider is assuming the same thing and hoping that his hollow bolt is never actually put to a real life test.

 

Replacing a bolt on a guardrail along a state highway, county road or interstate with a hollowed out one is not only vandalism, it's dangerous. They are disigned to collapse in a certain way to minimize the force of the crash, but to still hold up and keep the vehicle on the road.

 

I know, I know - people can make the old (crappy) argument that "oh, it's only ONE ______. It's not like it'll make a difference." which irritates me to no end. So what if everyone had the same opinion and everyone was doing it?

[+badlands]

We had a similar example here in Florida, where there are at various stations large well heads where city trucks fill up with water for irrigating grass along highways. A geocacher removed one of the bolts holding two of the large pipes together, hollowed it out, and replaced it as a micro. It was nearly impossible to find, except that I knew from earlier finds that this was the method. It concerned me, however, that someone had messed around with what may have been an integral part of a high pressure water system, city property, etc...in that case it seemed that he was taking it over the edge and doing something that could reflect badly on geocachers.

 

In this case it's vandalism, pure and simple. The cache should be reported, archived, the bolt removed and reported to the city so they can replace it.

[+Renegade Knight]

For those who care this is what is looked at for Guardrail among other things.

 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/ro...e/nchrp_350.htm

[CoyoteRed]

I suppose the area the OP is bringing us to is extraordinarily unique in that there is a spot nice enough to which to bring us and there is absolutely no other way to hide a cache, much less a larger one, in the area.

 

Additionally, I've found plenty of caches on various types of street signs. None required a tool or disassembly. I have on occasion removed the post cap from a fence post to find a cache, though.

 

Regardless, permission is key. If you can secure permission then that settles a lot of issues. It seems as though most "Is it alright to..."-type of questions are those that probably wouldn't fly if asked upfront to the land owner/steward or Groundspeak. It's fine to ask the community on issues regarding getting a cache published, but it's totally another to ask the community about something only the person responsible for the item you using to hide your cache can answer.

 

To answer the OP's question (for the benefit of the rest of the readers if nothing else), I wouldn't elevate disassembly of a single bolt to the level of vandalism if you can guarantee the bolt will always be put back properly. Considering you can't guarantee folks will put back a regular-sized cache at the same tree, I thin the answer is obvious. The very least, even if you could guarantee it, it is tampering and still a no-no in my book.

 

While there are a very few exceptions, a good rule guideline suggestion of thumb (for those who bark the mantra "no more rules!") is to make sure you cache does not require tools to disassemble any part of infrastructure. It may be a good idea for even times when you can secure permission. Cachers don't really know if you secured permission and, quite frankly, as a finder you can safely lay odds they didn't. Regardless, you don't want folks getting into the mindset of bringing common hand tools and disassembling everything on site. ...especially those caches with oh-so helpful hints.

 

Don't get me wrong, those fake bolt heads magnetized to flat surfaces are pretty cool. For some reason it's hard for me to see them, but when I do they seem to just out from corner of my eye--kind of like those magic hidden-image paintings--and can't not see them.

 

If I come across a cache that required hand tools to disassemble a piece of infrastructure, I'll walk away.

[+JohnnyVegas]

As was explianed to me by one of the reviewers for my area. Even if a cacher has permission from a property owner or manager for a hide that does not fall within what is permitted in the guidlines, ground speak would be concerned that another cacher who finds the cache may copy it someplace else without premission from a property owner of manager. This could lead to real problems it any Law Enforcment or park dept. staff were to get called in.

If you want to see geocaching getting banned in an area, just let people that do not know how to read the guidlines go on hidding illegal caches.

 

Just to add. the California state parks dept is going to begin work on a set of guidelines for geocaching in california state parks in. They have concerns with caches that may be placed in areas that may be damaged by goecachers.

 

We can police our selves, or we can have outsiders policy us.

Edited August 26, 2007 by JohnnyVegas

[+Confucius' Cat]

It seems as though most "Is it alright to..."-type of questions are those that probably wouldn't fly if asked upfront to the land owner/steward or Groundspeak.

 

I base my opinions generally on my "morals" (which I have come to understand is a bad word in the forums).

 

My "moral compass" says, "If you think it is wrong, or you feel compelled to ask someone else if it might be wrong, simply don't do it."

 

(sorry about the use of the "M" word. I'll go to confession now for violating my * compass)

[+Rockin Roddy]

It seems as though most "Is it alright to..."-type of questions are those that probably wouldn't fly if asked upfront to the land owner/steward or Groundspeak.

 

I base my opinions generally on my "morals" (which I have come to understand is a bad word in the forums).

 

My "moral compass" says, "If you think it is wrong, or you feel compelled to ask someone else if it might be wrong, simply don't do it."

 

(sorry about the use of the "M" word. I'll go to confession now for violating my * compass)

 

[+TrailGators]

Here is a photo of a cache the any one should consider vandalism

I found this cache a few weeks ago. I would post a SBA but the last time I posted a SBA the local cachers went nuts.

<SNIP>

I'd have to know quite a bit more about it before I jump on the vandalism bandwagon.

The cache was place last March, The hole was drilled for the cache, there is not reason for the hole to be there other than to hide a cache. It is drilled into a single piece of lumber that is part of the support structure for the bench in the park. The bolt was painted to make it look old.

If you look at the photo you can see the wood inside of the hole is not weathered.

Redwoods cache

I still can't say that it was vandalism.

sbell... THEY DRILLED A HOLE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY!! You don't think drilling a hole in someone else's property is vandalism?

 

If your argument is that you think the hider might have used an existing hole instead of drilling a new one, or if the hider got permission from the owner first, then I'll agree with you. But drilling a hole in something that belongs to someone else without permission would be considered vandalism by almost any LEO you ask.

Nomex certainly thought it was vandalism.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If I come across a cache that required hand tools to disassemble a piece of infrastructure, I'll walk away.

 

One of the best I've seen of the "no disassembly required" types was a large bridge bolt assembly held in place by a strong magnet. It looked like it belonged...mostly.... One DNF came back and found it then posted that the first time they had actually grabbed it and used it as a support for looking around. That was a good magnet.

[+TrailGators]

...If I come across a cache that required hand tools to disassemble a piece of infrastructure, I'll walk away.

 

One of the best I've seen of the "no disassembly required" types was a large bridge bolt assembly held in place by a strong magnet. It looked like it belonged...mostly.... One DNF came back and found it then posted that the first time they had actually grabbed it and used it as a support for looking around. That was a good magnet.

 

I've seen a couple of those too. I think they use rare earth magnets, which are incredibly strong for their size.

[+nicolo]

...

 

I know, I know - people can make the old (crappy) argument that "oh, it's only ONE ______. It's not like it'll make a difference." which irritates me to no end. So what if everyone had the same opinion and everyone was doing it?

What irritates me to no end is when someone uses the old (crappy) counter argument "what if everyone did it" ... like that's gonna happen,

[CoyoteRed]

What irritates me to no end is when someone uses the old (crappy) counter argument "what if everyone did it" ... like that's gonna happen,

Well, a response to a SBA report I posted and then a follow up on a very ill conceived placement was something to the effect, "they use that type of hide up here all the time."

 

Huh, a reviewer thinking a reported hide was acceptable because he sees the same in his area. (There are no local South Carolina reviewers.) Higher site admin didn't agree and quickly archived the listing.

 

So, I guess a bad technique can be copied and used elsewhere.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I see it happen all the time!

 

I found a cache recently that had given us fits for some time! The cache was a nail brazed to a copper tube about the size of a pencil, the tube was fitted into a hole drilled into a piling at the end of a bridge. This type of hide has been seen before (usually using a telephone pole), but I still don't like them! (even though they are fun and ingenuitive).

 

I wrote the owner asking for it to be fixed (i.e. moved to a better location not needing a drill)...but have doubts it will happen. Now I need to take the action of asking the reviewer to check into it (not looking forward to it as I "know" the cachers who placed this...sort of "know" at least).

 

No, the drilled hole isn't causing damage, it won't ruin the piling. BUT, it IS against guidelines and could spell trouble if the park PTB find it and aren't happy!

 

Another was placed by good friends of mine...in a telephone pole! I told them at the time I found it (they joined me for the hunt) that it was against guidelines...not sure if that one was fixed or not! Actually, they had another on the same cache (multi) which was a film cannister in a drilled hole in an old dead tree...that is also against guidelines....

[+Confucius' Cat]

I see it happen all the time!

 

I found a cache recently that had given us fits for some time! The cache was a nail brazed to a copper tube about the size of a pencil, the tube was fitted into a hole drilled into a piling at the end of a bridge. This type of hide has been seen before (usually using a telephone pole), but I still don't like them! (even though they are fun and ingenuitive).

 

I wrote the owner asking for it to be fixed (i.e. moved to a better location not needing a drill)...but have doubts it will happen. Now I need to take the action of asking the reviewer to check into it (not looking forward to it as I "know" the cachers who placed this...sort of "know" at least).

 

No, the drilled hole isn't causing damage, it won't ruin the piling. BUT, it IS against guidelines and could spell trouble if the park PTB find it and aren't happy!

 

Another was placed by good friends of mine...in a telephone pole! I told them at the time I found it (they joined me for the hunt) that it was against guidelines...not sure if that one was fixed or not! Actually, they had another on the same cache (multi) which was a film cannister in a drilled hole in an old dead tree...that is also against guidelines....

Ok, so it is against the guidelines. But the holes in question have already been drilled. So how is "fixing" it (I assume by moving it to somewhere that a hole is not needed) going to make any difference? The hole is still drilled.

 

It doesn't really make any more sense to archive or "fix" these hides than it does to archive any number of hides that are "grandfathered." Since the "damage" has been done and presumably cannot be undone, why not just move on and, going forward, learn from the mistake and ask the question in the future before approval?

[+JohnnyVegas]

I see it happen all the time!

 

I found a cache recently that had given us fits for some time! The cache was a nail brazed to a copper tube about the size of a pencil, the tube was fitted into a hole drilled into a piling at the end of a bridge. This type of hide has been seen before (usually using a telephone pole), but I still don't like them! (even though they are fun and ingenuitive).

 

I wrote the owner asking for it to be fixed (i.e. moved to a better location not needing a drill)...but have doubts it will happen. Now I need to take the action of asking the reviewer to check into it (not looking forward to it as I "know" the cachers who placed this...sort of "know" at least).

 

No, the drilled hole isn't causing damage, it won't ruin the piling. BUT, it IS against guidelines and could spell trouble if the park PTB find it and aren't happy!

 

Another was placed by good friends of mine...in a telephone pole! I told them at the time I found it (they joined me for the hunt) that it was against guidelines...not sure if that one was fixed or not! Actually, they had another on the same cache (multi) which was a film cannister in a drilled hole in an old dead tree...that is also against guidelines....

Ok, so it is against the guidelines. But the holes in question have already been drilled. So how is "fixing" it (I assume by moving it to somewhere that a hole is not needed) going to make any difference? The hole is still drilled.

 

It doesn't really make any more sense to archive or "fix" these hides than it does to archive any number of hides that are "grandfathered." Since the "damage" has been done and presumably cannot be undone, why not just move on and, going forward, learn from the mistake and ask the question in the future before approval?

Because, other cachers will come along and they will think "oh what a wonderfull way to hide a cache" then they will copy it and in doing so will vandalize some other property. IT makes all the sense in the world to archive these caches so that they are not copied by others.

I would like to see some "grandfathered" cache archived, why not archive them.

 

Now I need to take the action of asking the reviewer to check into it (not looking forward to it as I "know" the cachers who placed this...sort of "know" at least).

Well you could contact the local reviewer with an e-mail. You might even set up another account so the bad hider does not know it is you.

Edited August 28, 2007 by JohnnyVegas

[+Rockin Roddy]

I see it happen all the time!

 

I found a cache recently that had given us fits for some time! The cache was a nail brazed to a copper tube about the size of a pencil, the tube was fitted into a hole drilled into a piling at the end of a bridge. This type of hide has been seen before (usually using a telephone pole), but I still don't like them! (even though they are fun and ingenuitive).

 

I wrote the owner asking for it to be fixed (i.e. moved to a better location not needing a drill)...but have doubts it will happen. Now I need to take the action of asking the reviewer to check into it (not looking forward to it as I "know" the cachers who placed this...sort of "know" at least).

 

No, the drilled hole isn't causing damage, it won't ruin the piling. BUT, it IS against guidelines and could spell trouble if the park PTB find it and aren't happy!

 

Another was placed by good friends of mine...in a telephone pole! I told them at the time I found it (they joined me for the hunt) that it was against guidelines...not sure if that one was fixed or not! Actually, they had another on the same cache (multi) which was a film cannister in a drilled hole in an old dead tree...that is also against guidelines....

Ok, so it is against the guidelines. But the holes in question have already been drilled. So how is "fixing" it (I assume by moving it to somewhere that a hole is not needed) going to make any difference? The hole is still drilled.

 

It doesn't really make any more sense to archive or "fix" these hides than it does to archive any number of hides that are "grandfathered." Since the "damage" has been done and presumably cannot be undone, why not just move on and, going forward, learn from the mistake and ask the question in the future before approval?

 

For the reason JohnnyVegas said AND because the land owner could get pretty boiled if (s)he were to find this. I'm doubting the landowners know that a hole was drilled in the piling. Some landowners may not even care, but the CHANCE that one might could be trouble. Keeping landowners happy (as with the digging holes guidelines (laws and rules are frowned on here for some reason) should be one of our main goals...a mad landowner could mean no hides in that area!

[+sbell111]

I don't buy the 'because someone might copy it' reason. If we rely on that argument, every cache should be removed.

 

If I find a cache hidden in the woods, then I should be able to hide a cache in the woods, right? Wrong. I need to find an appropriate wooded spot and get permission.

 

If I find a moving cache, I should be able to hide a moving cache, right? Wrong. Moving caches are no longer allowed, but some grandfathered ones exist.

 

It has long been held that each cache hide stands on it's own and that an approved cache does not set a precedent for future caches.

[+sbell111]

For the reason JohnnyVegas said AND because the land owner could get pretty boiled if (s)he were to find this. I'm doubting the landowners know that a hole was drilled in the piling. Some landowners may not even care, but the CHANCE that one might could be trouble. Keeping landowners happy (as with the digging holes guidelines (laws and rules are frowned on here for some reason) should be one of our main goals...a mad landowner could mean no hides in that area!

The problem is, you don't know that the landowner didn't approve the cache hide or, in fact, hide it himself.

 

This issue is a question of permission, not vandalism. Questions of permission should be sent to the cache owner or/and the local reviewer. There is no point in discussing specific examples in the forums, since there is no way for us to know whether the hide was permitted.

Edited August 28, 2007 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

It's a park Sbell, I doubt the person hiding this owns the property OR even asked for permission to place (let alone deface the property). If I had a cache in this manner, I'd certainly state very clearly that I had permission both for the hide AND for the manner of hiding.

 

Since I asked and got no reply (which makes it more reasonable to think that permission was not obtained, I ask, I state permission very clearly), I'd guess it's not supposed to be there (the hole that is).

 

ALSO, people copy hides all the time! If someone thought this was a great hide, they'd be more apt to try to copy it (electric box hides???). You may not agree with that, but it's a fact! Even IF the cache in question was placed with permission (to drill), that doesn't mean the next one would ask! We have a golf course...some golfers can't walk as good as they'd like and ask us to allow them to get closer to the greens and tees with their carts than others are allowed. When asked, we give them an orange flag so others know they are handicapped, but that doesn't stop the "copycats" from following suit. It's a slippery slope letting one go through, all want the same privilege. Best approach is not allowing in the first place.

 

Either way, I asked the owner, now I'll let the reviewer ask. I know...cache police! Well, so be it, what else should be done?

[+cache_test_dummies]

I don't buy the 'because someone might copy it' reason. If we rely on that argument, every cache should be removed.

 

If I find a cache hidden in the woods, then I should be able to hide a cache in the woods, right? Wrong. I need to find an appropriate wooded spot and get permission.

 

If I find a moving cache, I should be able to hide a moving cache, right? Wrong. Moving caches are no longer allowed, but some grandfathered ones exist.

 

It has long been held that each cache hide stands on it's own and that an approved cache does not set a precedent for future caches.

I see what you are saying, but clearly there is a difference between cache style (ie drilled hole), and cache location/type (ie woods, moving cache). In the current cache review structure, reviewers have plenty of tools to identify caches that violation location and type guidelines. On the other hand, reviewers can only identify a cache that violates the 'deface' guideline if the cache owner (or someone who finds the cache later) mentions it.

[+Ambrosia]

Another reason - if Reviewers aren't strong with a person like this and tell them to remove it, even though the hole is still there, then it encourages people placing caches like this because they think that if they get it slipped through then it will stay because it's grandfathered. It's the same with things like vacation caches...."oh, it's already there and will become trash, so you might as well list it so that people can enjoy it until it gets archived". That's a never ending road if it's not stopped early.

 

It's like when I worked at Pizza Hut when I was a teenager. Their policy was that if someone ordered a pizza and then didn't pick it up or the order was wrong, that empoyees could not eat it. It seemed like such a waste to throw it in the trash. But they knew that if they allowed it, then people could get sloppy, or make something wrong on purpose, or do a bogus order and then the empoyees would get a free pizza. It could be a costly cycle.

[+sbell111]

It's a park Sbell, I doubt the person hiding this owns the property OR even asked for permission to place (let alone deface the property).

It sounds like you have preconceived opinions that caches aren't placed with permission unless the cache page clearly discusses that permission. Most players are not in that camp, in my opinion.

... On the other hand, reviewers can only identify a cache that violates the 'deface' guideline if the cache owner (or someone who finds the cache later) mentions it.

That's true about all of the guidelines. Most of the time, the reviewer isn't aware of a problem unless someone throws a flag. Then, the reviewer can ask the appropriate questions and archive the listing, if necessary.

... It's like when I worked at Pizza Hut when I was a teenager. Their policy was that if someone ordered a pizza and then didn't pick it up or the order was wrong, that empoyees could not eat it. It seemed like such a waste to throw it in the trash. But they knew that if they allowed it, then people could get sloppy, or make something wrong on purpose, or do a bogus order and then the empoyees would get a free pizza. It could be a costly cycle.

When I worked at Dominos a hundred years ago, the policy was just the opposite. If someone didn't pick up a pie or if it was made in error, the employees got to eat. It helped make up for the crappy hours and small salary that they paid us college kids.

[+cache_test_dummies]

... On the other hand, reviewers can only identify a cache that violates the 'deface' guideline if the cache owner (or someone who finds the cache later) mentions it.

That's true about all of the guidelines.

It's true for some of the guidelines, but certainly not all. Of the list of Off-limit caches, I'd say that at least half are situations easily recognizable by the reviewers.

[+sbell111]

... On the other hand, reviewers can only identify a cache that violates the 'deface' guideline if the cache owner (or someone who finds the cache later) mentions it.

That's true about all of the guidelines.

It's true for some of the guidelines, but certainly not all. Of the list of Off-limit caches, I'd say that at least half are situations easily recognizable by the reviewers.

True enough. I worded my post poorly. What I meant to communicate is that there are a number of reasons that 'bad' caches might get listed. When the reviewers are notified about these caches, they are dealt with.

[+IDLookout]

...

 

I know, I know - people can make the old (crappy) argument that "oh, it's only ONE ______. It's not like it'll make a difference." which irritates me to no end. So what if everyone had the same opinion and everyone was doing it?

What irritates me to no end is when someone uses the old (crappy) counter argument "what if everyone did it" ... like that's gonna happen,

 

lol - you'd be surprised at how many people there are out there with that attitude.

 

It's a very selfish attitude to have.

[CoyoteRed]

It's like when I worked at Pizza Hut when I was a teenager. ...then the empoyees would get a free pizza.

Your manager was harsh. We ate free every night. We just couldn't take anything home for free.

 

I guess our manager figured if our bellies were full we'd not be tempted to pull any tomfoolery.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I see it happen all the time!

 

I found a cache recently that had given us fits for some time! The cache was a nail brazed to a copper tube about the size of a pencil, the tube was fitted into a hole drilled into a piling at the end of a bridge. This type of hide has been seen before (usually using a telephone pole), but I still don't like them! (even though they are fun and ingenuitive).

 

I wrote the owner asking for it to be fixed (i.e. moved to a better location not needing a drill)...but have doubts it will happen. Now I need to take the action of asking the reviewer to check into it (not looking forward to it as I "know" the cachers who placed this...sort of "know" at least).

 

No, the drilled hole isn't causing damage, it won't ruin the piling. BUT, it IS against guidelines and could spell trouble if the park PTB find it and aren't happy!

 

Another was placed by good friends of mine...in a telephone pole! I told them at the time I found it (they joined me for the hunt) that it was against guidelines...not sure if that one was fixed or not! Actually, they had another on the same cache (multi) which was a film cannister in a drilled hole in an old dead tree...that is also against guidelines....

Ok, so it is against the guidelines. But the holes in question have already been drilled. So how is "fixing" it (I assume by moving it to somewhere that a hole is not needed) going to make any difference? The hole is still drilled.

 

It doesn't really make any more sense to archive or "fix" these hides than it does to archive any number of hides that are "grandfathered." Since the "damage" has been done and presumably cannot be undone, why not just move on and, going forward, learn from the mistake and ask the question in the future before approval?

 

For the reason JohnnyVegas said AND because the land owner could get pretty boiled if (s)he were to find this. I'm doubting the landowners know that a hole was drilled in the piling. Some landowners may not even care, but the CHANCE that one might could be trouble. Keeping landowners happy (as with the digging holes guidelines (laws and rules are frowned on here for some reason) should be one of our main goals...a mad landowner could mean no hides in that area!

Yeah, but once the "damage" is done, archiving the cache won't make it "all better." (perhaps if mommy would kiss it?)

 

As far as the reputation of the caching community is concerned it is probably best to "let sleeping dogs lie." Since no one knows if the cache was placed with permission or not, pointing the hole out to the manager would probably do a lot more damage to the reputation of the caching community than just leaving it for the manager to find himself- assuming that there was NO permission. (Otherwise the discussion is irrelevant because the manager already knows about it.)

 

The "copy cat" issue is BS for two reasons (at least). One, as has already been pointed out, each cache stands alone for review and two, once a hole has been drilled, even if the cache is not approved, the hole remains.

 

Refusing to publish (or archiving an already existing cache) does not stop potential vandalism in the name of caching any more than banning guns on campus stops criminals from shooting college students.

 

It is already in the guidelines to not deface property. Short of taking each and every cacher by the hand and slapping them when they reach for their drill motor, "no, no, baby you can't drill that hole," there really isn't much more the community can do.

 

If the property manager finds out and IF the property manager objects, then the cache placer should be held liable for damages and at the least should apologise and pay to fix the object correctly. The cacher can write it off as tuition to the school of hard knocks- or "stupid tax" as Dave Ramsey would say.

[Dinoprophet]

I see it happen all the time!

 

I found a cache recently that had given us fits for some time! The cache was a nail brazed to a copper tube about the size of a pencil, the tube was fitted into a hole drilled into a piling at the end of a bridge. This type of hide has been seen before (usually using a telephone pole), but I still don't like them! (even though they are fun and ingenuitive).

 

I wrote the owner asking for it to be fixed (i.e. moved to a better location not needing a drill)...but have doubts it will happen. Now I need to take the action of asking the reviewer to check into it (not looking forward to it as I "know" the cachers who placed this...sort of "know" at least).

 

No, the drilled hole isn't causing damage, it won't ruin the piling. BUT, it IS against guidelines and could spell trouble if the park PTB find it and aren't happy!

 

Another was placed by good friends of mine...in a telephone pole! I told them at the time I found it (they joined me for the hunt) that it was against guidelines...not sure if that one was fixed or not! Actually, they had another on the same cache (multi) which was a film cannister in a drilled hole in an old dead tree...that is also against guidelines....

Ok, so it is against the guidelines. But the holes in question have already been drilled. So how is "fixing" it (I assume by moving it to somewhere that a hole is not needed) going to make any difference? The hole is still drilled.

 

It doesn't really make any more sense to archive or "fix" these hides than it does to archive any number of hides that are "grandfathered." Since the "damage" has been done and presumably cannot be undone, why not just move on and, going forward, learn from the mistake and ask the question in the future before approval?

 

For the reason JohnnyVegas said AND because the land owner could get pretty boiled if (s)he were to find this. I'm doubting the landowners know that a hole was drilled in the piling. Some landowners may not even care, but the CHANCE that one might could be trouble. Keeping landowners happy (as with the digging holes guidelines (laws and rules are frowned on here for some reason) should be one of our main goals...a mad landowner could mean no hides in that area!

Yeah, but once the "damage" is done, archiving the cache won't make it "all better." (perhaps if mommy would kiss it?)

 

As far as the reputation of the caching community is concerned it is probably best to "let sleeping dogs lie." Since no one knows if the cache was placed with permission or not, pointing the hole out to the manager would probably do a lot more damage to the reputation of the caching community than just leaving it for the manager to find himself- assuming that there was NO permission. (Otherwise the discussion is irrelevant because the manager already knows about it.)

 

The "copy cat" issue is BS for two reasons (at least). One, as has already been pointed out, each cache stands alone for review and two, once a hole has been drilled, even if the cache is not approved, the hole remains.

 

Refusing to publish (or archiving an already existing cache) does not stop potential vandalism in the name of caching any more than banning guns on campus stops criminals from shooting college students.

 

It is already in the guidelines to not deface property. Short of taking each and every cacher by the hand and slapping them when they reach for their drill motor, "no, no, baby you can't drill that hole," there really isn't much more the community can do.

 

If the property manager finds out and IF the property manager objects, then the cache placer should be held liable for damages and at the least should apologise and pay to fix the object correctly. The cacher can write it off as tuition to the school of hard knocks- or "stupid tax" as Dave Ramsey would say.

I don't see how either point negates the "copy cat" issue. It's in the guidelines not to deface property, but as the existence of this thread proves, there is ambiguity in some folks' minds as to whether drilling a hole in something fits the definition of defacing. So the guideline clearly doesn't cut it. You can minimize it with the "no no baby" line, but it appears that some people do in fact need to be told.

 

You're right that refusing to publish won't stop vandalism. Stopping it isn't the point. Publishing a vandal cache suggests to others that gc.com is okay with it. As is often argued when discussing permission, "if it isn't banned, then it's allowed". Or at the very least, I see that as long as I do the damage before I submit, gc.com won't stop me. It would be no different than someone burying a cache and the reviewer saying, "Well, you shouldn't have done that, but the hole is dug. Approved!"

 

To extend your metaphor, it's like not punishing someone who shoots up a campus because, hey, the victims are already dead.

[+hairball45]

One of my "part time jobs" is that of serving on Village Council here in my metropolis of 340 souls. I'm on the streets committee, and I would be quite unhappy if someone were removing bolts from my signs for ANY purpose. Adding bolts, nuts, screws, rivets or pieces of chain wouldn't go over well either. I wouldn't have a problem with, oh say a magnetic key case or other sticky thing between the sign and its post, or a film can under a small rock at its base, but taking them apart would likely result in unpleasantness. I wouldn't even take the smiley, but I would recommend archiving the cache.

hairball

[+Rockin Roddy]

QUOTE(Rockin Roddy @ Aug 28 2007, 08:01 AM)

It's a park Sbell, I doubt the person hiding this owns the property OR even asked for permission to place (let alone deface the property).

It sounds like you have preconceived opinions that caches aren't placed with permission unless the cache page clearly discusses that permission. Most players are not in that camp, in my opinion.

 

Sounds like you missed the part that said I had asked the owner? Also, I think it's safe to say that many cachers THINK they have full rights to most parks, so why ask (if bikers can...if hikers can etc...I think I read this multiple times in previous threads???). But yes Sbell, I am assuming that someone that didn't read (or at least follow) guidelines for placing a cache probably didn't ask for permission to either place OR to drill the hole! BTW...as stated, if I had a cache in this manner, I'd state CLEARLY that I had permission so as NOT to have this kind of confusion and not have a reviewer asking me the questions I'm sure will be asked of this hider. (you're assuming I think every cache should state the permission thing. That's not what my statement said)

 

But for the record...asked the owner and no response, so the next logical step is to ask a reviewer to jump in and ask.

 

If the property manager finds out and IF the property manager objects, then the cache placer should be held liable for damages and at the least should apologise and pay to fix the object correctly. The cacher can write it off as tuition to the school of hard knocks- or "stupid tax" as Dave Ramsey would say

 

Great, except caching is called into question when allowing these to continue to be used. By archiving, at least we could claim it was someone that didn't know the rules (if the PTB do happen to see the hole and connect it to a cache). A cache in the hole is not good. Allowing these to stay in place also rewards the hider in the logic that CC states. Also, it would be bad to wait and see if the owners objected to having their property defaced.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+sbell111]

If I get permission to place a fake birdhouse, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to alter a real birdhouse and place it, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to place a real birdhouse, but conceal a cache in it's pole, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to place a fake rock cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to alter a real rock and use it for a cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to place a bench in a small park that has a cache concealed within it, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to alter a pre-existing bench to hold a cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to alter a piece of public artwork to conceal a cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to place a 'hollow log' cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to hollow out a stump and place a cache inside, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

The answer to all of these questions, is 'No', in my opinion. If the land manager approves the hide, it's not vandalism.

 

If you have a question as to whether a cache is kosher, contact the cache owner or your friendly neighborhood reviewer, but the simple truth is that items can, indeed, be altered to conceal geocaches.

[+Jhwk]

If I get permission to place a fake birdhouse, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to alter a real birdhouse and place it, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to place a real birdhouse, but conceal a cache in it's pole, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to place a fake rock cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to alter a real rock and use it for a cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to place a bench in a small park that has a cache concealed within it, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to alter a pre-existing bench to hold a cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to alter a piece of public artwork to conceal a cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to place a 'hollow log' cache, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

If I get permission to hollow out a stump and place a cache inside, is it a 'vandal cache'?

 

The answer to all of these questions, is 'No', in my opinion. If the land manager approves the hide, it's not vandalism.

 

If you have a question as to whether a cache is kosher, contact the cache owner or your friendly neighborhood reviewer, but the simple truth is that items can, indeed, be altered to conceal geocaches.

but your confusing the birds, rocks, sitters, artists, logs and stumps. Have you no heart for the weaker species?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Because, other cachers will come along and they will think "oh what a wonderfull way to hide a cache" then they will copy it and in doing so will vandalize some other property. IT makes all the sense in the world to archive these caches so that they are not copied by others....

 

It only makes sence in a world where it's important to hold the people doing the right thing hostage to the ones doing the wrong thing. I don't like seeing laws, rules and regs that only punish the innocent.

 

That's what your suggestion is. Archive a good cache so that some other moron can't see it and potentially do harm. That moron will go on and do harm anyway, but the good guy is punished by having all his hard work doing the right thing taken away.

[+Renegade Knight]

One of my "part time jobs" is that of serving on Village Council here in my metropolis of 340 souls. I'm on the streets committee, and I would be quite unhappy if someone were removing bolts from my signs for ANY purpose. Adding bolts, nuts, screws, rivets or pieces of chain wouldn't go over well either. I wouldn't have a problem with, oh say a magnetic key case or other sticky thing between the sign and its post, or a film can under a small rock at its base, but taking them apart would likely result in unpleasantness. I wouldn't even take the smiley, but I would recommend archiving the cache.

hairball

 

Thank you for posting your perspective on this. We don't always get to hear from facility owners.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Double post

when the computer reports an error, I assume it means it didn't work!

Edited August 30, 2007 by Confucius' Cat

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

If the property manager finds out and IF the property manager objects, then the cache placer should be held liable for damages and at the least should apologise and pay to fix the object correctly. The cacher can write it off as tuition to the school of hard knocks- or "stupid tax" as Dave Ramsey would say

 

Great, except caching is called into question when allowing these to continue to be used. By archiving, at least we could claim it was someone that didn't know the rules (if the PTB do happen to see the hole and connect it to a cache). A cache in the hole is not good. Allowing these to stay in place also rewards the hider in the logic that CC states. Also, it would be bad to wait and see if the owners objected to having their property defaced.

But if you point it out to the property manager, then you are going to find out unquestionably whether the manager ok'd it or not and if heshe didn't, YOU have caused (or at least contributed to) the "black eye" that would perhaps not have happened had you simply let it go.

 

Not every little hole in a pole is a serious matter. But if you bring the subject up, it can become a lot "bigger" than it really is. It is kind of amazing how much bigger little things become when there is a potential of getting someone else to pay for it. Just ask your local insurance adjuster.

 

Until you point it out to the manager, he might never see it, or he might have seen it and thought it was no big deal, or he might have seen it and knew that the hole was already there,

 

Or he might have accidentally drilled a wrong hole himself, which the cacher used without his knowledge, or perhaps the pole was damaged by someone else in a way that neither you or another cacher knew about and now since you pointed it out, he can bill the cacher for a new pole to cover HIS (property owner's) mistake.

 

A lot of this sport is best left on the "QT."

[+Rockin Roddy]

To say it is the fault of the one asking to have the cache removed is laughable! Where did I say anything about asking the owner anyway? I intend to point it out to a reviewer to handle.

 

Blame the people who create the problem, NOT those that want to fix the problem!