Waiting period until newbies could place 1st cache

[+TrailGators]

As a former newbie, I did wait some time before I put out a cache. I wanted to get an idea of what made for good one's in my area and what weren't so good. I think its useful to encourage waiting but am not sure that turning it into a rule is all that useful. JD

Good point! It seems to the "the rule" that is scaring everybody.

[+JDandDD]

Instead of waiting periods we should be discussing ways to make geocachers more aware of the guidelines.

Well, I'm agreeing with you for once. Yes, we have to make all geocachers more aware and there should also perhaps be some other things.

 

One, look at parking lot caches, caches close to buildings, and under bridges etc. Perhaps the reviewers should ask for specific proof of permission from the property owner be forwarded by the cache placer before approving the listing.

 

Two, we have time outs (temporary bannings) from the forums to emphasize and manage forum behaviour, perhaps a timeout system from the caching pages for flagrant violations of the guidelines.

 

Three, specific guideline against any object (cache contatiner, TB etc.) made to look like an explosive device or could be reasonably construed as such. This is hard to define I realze and that isn't a good one, but the problem does have to be looked at.

 

JD

[+sbell111]

... Perhaps this is not the best solution, but we do have a problem.

71 caches worldwide in the last six years, many of which were not archived and are still available. Perhaps your definition of 'problem' is different than mine.

[+qanine]

I don't want this game to be banned in areas because of a bad hide by a "newbie". I dont want any trouble coming to anyone participating in this wonderful addictive sport.

 

How about bad hides by "Experienced Cachers"? I don't believe for a minute that permission was obtained to place the majority of the thousands of parkinglot micros out there. And you can't tell me they were all placed by n00bs either. The magnet hides on the public utilities is another type I have seen placed by cachers who have been doing this for years. Public Utilities are not public property.

 

IMO waiting periods for anything won't change an individual's behavior. People do what they want to do regardless of the sanctions placed upon them.

 

I like the idea of linking the cache approval page to the guidelines though.

 

"The problem with common sense is that it isn't common enough"

Edited February 7, 2007 by qanine

[+sbell111]

... The problem I see with the guidelines is that there are people on these threads that cite exceptions almost every guideline. ... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. However, if the bridge in not a major bridge than it's some argue that it's OK. So now we need to figure out where the line really is. ...

Ummm, you might want to take another look at the guidelines.

Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

Several posters like to sensationalize every little issue. Frequently, we see them 'bend' the guidelines to try to support their personal preferences. I'm not specifically accusing you of that in your referenced post, but...

[+Muddy and Amused]

Being brand new to geocaching (and very responsible and ethically minded people) we were very surprised to find out there are no waiting periods for newbies (like myself and my wife). Here's a point of view from someone who just joined and hasn't even bought his first GPS yet....I disagree with the 3-6 moth waiting period in the sense of time. A newbie might sign up in the begining of winter and not go out for his first cache hunt unit spring (a sesonal cacher), thus being albe to hide 1st cache before ever seeing someone elses. I do feel, even as a newbie, that there should be a 5-cache probationary period in the sense of experience. My (very unexpereinced) opinion is that nobody should be allowed to hide their 1st cache until after logging 5 finds. This will help them understand other peoples thought process' in not only hiding the cache, but the location of, and getting to it as well. So our votes are:

 

Waiting Period: No

Probationary Period: Yes

[+BlueDeuce]

How much of an issue is this? I would rather see gc.com spend time, money, and effort on other issues/upgrades rather than adding restrictions and then spending even more time explaining/defending them to every newbie.

 

edit then/than

Edited February 7, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+qanine]

My (very unexpereinced) opinion is that nobody should be allowed to hide their 1st cache until after logging 5 finds. This will help them understand other peoples thought process' in not only hiding the cache, but the location of, and getting to it as well.

 

I don't think the number of caches found is a valuable measurement in determining a persons ability to place a well thought out cache that meets the guidelines. Most of my first found caches were the so called "lame parking lot micros" which I'm sure there was no permission received to place.

 

I think that having the ability to flag and send caches back to the reviewer with comments as to why you think a cache falls outside of the guidlines may be appropriate.

[+sbell111]

I think that having the ability to flag and send caches back to the reviewer with comments as to why you think a cache falls outside of the guidlines may be appropriate.

Have you considered 'email'?

[+TrailGators]

... The problem I see with the guidelines is that there are people on these threads that cite exceptions almost every guideline. ... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. However, if the bridge in not a major bridge than it's some argue that it's OK. So now we need to figure out where the line really is. ...

Ummm, you might want to take another look at the guidelines.

Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

Several posters like to sensationalize every little issue. Frequently, we see them 'bend' the guidelines to try to support their personal preferences. I'm not specifically accusing you of that in your referenced post, but...

I think you need to re-read that guideline so you see the words: "but are not limited to" because you basically just implied that only highway bridges are included. Just so you know there are major bridges that aren't highway bridges. For example, it would be a major blunder to hide a cache under a NYC bridge as well as hundreds of other such bridges. Edited February 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

... The problem I see with the guidelines is that there are people on these threads that cite exceptions almost every guideline. ... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. However, if the bridge in not a major bridge than it's some argue that it's OK. So now we need to figure out where the line really is. ...

Ummm, you might want to take another look at the guidelines.

Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

Several posters like to sensationalize every little issue. Frequently, we see them 'bend' the guidelines to try to support their personal preferences. I'm not specifically accusing you of that in your referenced post, but...

I think you need to re-read that guideline so you see the words: "but are not limited to" because you basically just implied that only highway bridges are included. Just so you know there are major bridges that aren't highway bridges. For example, it would be a major blunder to hide a cache under a NYC bridge.

Of course, the guidelines allow for other structures than those few listed. However, that in no way means that all bridges are verboten. Edited February 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+qanine]

I think that having the ability to flag and send caches back to the reviewer with comments as to why you think a cache falls outside of the guidlines may be appropriate.

Have you considered 'email'?

Of course

[+TrailGators]

... The problem I see with the guidelines is that there are people on these threads that cite exceptions almost every guideline. ... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. However, if the bridge in not a major bridge than it's some argue that it's OK. So now we need to figure out where the line really is. ...

Ummm, you might want to take another look at the guidelines.

Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

Several posters like to sensationalize every little issue. Frequently, we see them 'bend' the guidelines to try to support their personal preferences. I'm not specifically accusing you of that in your referenced post, but...

I think you need to re-read that guideline so you see the words: "but are not limited to" because you basically just implied that only highway bridges are included. Just so you know there are major bridges that aren't highway bridges. For example, it would be a major blunder to hide a cache under a NYC bridge.

Of course, the guidelines allow for other structures than those few listed. However, that in no way means that all bridges are verboten.

I never said that all bridges were forbidden. Anyhow, please define a bridge that is on the hairy edge of being acceptable. Also please explain how everyone will have the same exact understanding of this borderline bridge.... Edited February 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+BlueDeuce]

because you basically just implied that only highway bridges are included. Just so you know there are major bridges that aren't highway bridges. For example, it would be a major blunder to hide a cache under a NYC bridge as well as hundreds of other such bridges.

 

Keep in mind that the bridge restriction is not a requirement in all countries, such as the UK.

Edited February 7, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[The Vargman]

I think that having the ability to flag and send caches back to the reviewer with comments as to why you think a cache falls outside of the guidlines may be appropriate.

 

O.k. I'll bite. Has this ever been asked for as a mod before? Sounds reasonable to me. Have the reviewer revisit the approval and ask for documented permission in cases of suspected "shenanigans" (sp?)?

[The Vargman]

I think that having the ability to flag and send caches back to the reviewer with comments as to why you think a cache falls outside of the guidlines may be appropriate.

Have you considered 'email'?

A good point actually. I guess I didn't think of it that way. I would say though a "simple" checkbox requires far less effort and feels more annonymous. But I can also see it being abused by folks that just dislike the cache (or cacher). I dunno. It just didn't sound like a horrible idea when first posted.

 

*edited because I was unaware of the automated ® symbol.

Edited February 7, 2007 by The Vargman

[+TrailGators]

because you basically just implied that only highway bridges are included. Just so you know there are major bridges that aren't highway bridges. For example, it would be a major blunder to hide a cache under a NYC bridge as well as hundreds of other such bridges.

 

Keep in mind that the bridge restriction is not a requirement in all countries, such as the UK.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is that there will always be a gray area with the guidelines. The gray area is wide when you are new and it gets narrower as you gain understanding through experience.

 

Perhaps the best solution to stop these incidents would be for everyone to periodically examine all their caches with a clear understanding of the guidelines and remove/archive any questionable caches. If people are not sure then they can ask questions in the forums.

[Sadie]

<snip>

Keep in mind that the bridge restriction is not a requirement in all countries, such as the UK.

Interesting, I didn't know that. <snip>

This is a valid point. It show that just because a person has been caching for years doesn't mean they will not place an illegal cache. In this case, no real harm, if you moved to the UK, you wouldn't be placing caches under bridges in the UK. However, if a UK resident of 4 years caching experience were to move to the US, then they could place a cache under a bridge not knowing better.

[+tozainamboku]

The gray area is wide when you are new and it gets narrower as you gain understanding through experience.

I'm not too sure of this statement. One could read the guidelines, take a broad view of which bridges are not good to hide caches on, find a few caches on bridges, complain about them to the reviewer, be ignored or told that the cache is grandfathered and so long as it doesn't cause a problem it can remain, decide that some bridges are ok after all, and hide a cache you wouldn't have hidden as a newbie.

 

The reason there are gray areas is because these are guidelines. It is best to understand the reason for the various guidelines. In the case of bridges the stated reason is that they are "public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks". Of course most cachers are not aware of what public structures are deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. You could take the approach that the terrorist would blow up anything - even a foot bridge in the woods - or you could take the approach that the terrorist are likely to choose target that would cause the most casualities or the most economic damage. You might also consider whether the cache would be mistaken for a terrorist's bomb. A small nano might not cause the concern that an ammo box might. There is currently nothing in the guidelines about this and perhaps there should be. I would try to understand the reason for the guideline in the first place when deciding if it is OK to place a cache.

[+sbell111]

I never said that all bridges were forbidden. ...

Really???

... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. ...

[+TrailGators]

I never said that all bridges were forbidden. ...

Really???

... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. ...

You have a way of nit-picking everything. It is really annoying. I was speaking in general terms. Obviously, I meant the type of bridge that the guidelines outline....

[+TrailGators]

The gray area is wide when you are new and it gets narrower as you gain understanding through experience.

I'm not too sure of this statement. One could read the guidelines, take a broad view of which bridges are not good to hide caches on, find a few caches on bridges, complain about them to the reviewer, be ignored or told that the cache is grandfathered and so long as it doesn't cause a problem it can remain, decide that some bridges are ok after all, and hide a cache you wouldn't have hidden as a newbie.

 

The reason there are gray areas is because these are guidelines. It is best to understand the reason for the various guidelines. In the case of bridges the stated reason is that they are "public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks". Of course most cachers are not aware of what public structures are deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. You could take the approach that the terrorist would blow up anything - even a foot bridge in the woods - or you could take the approach that the terrorist are likely to choose target that would cause the most casualities or the most economic damage. You might also consider whether the cache would be mistaken for a terrorist's bomb. A small nano might not cause the concern that an ammo box might. There is currently nothing in the guidelines about this and perhaps there should be. I would try to understand the reason for the guideline in the first place when deciding if it is OK to place a cache.

I agree. This is not an easy thing for a newbie or even many oldbies to correctly interpret. The other point that a lot of people miss is that it's the perception of the person that stumbles across the geocache that is key. In this age of terrorism there are people that really think we are going to be terrorized so that should be considered. If you watch the TV show 24, you can see one theory on some of the places that terrorists could strike including shopping malls and schools. Is that a good guide? Anyhow, we all form our own opinions, and so that is how we decide where not to place caches. But everyone seems to have a different opinion and some of these wrong opinions lead to trouble.

[The Vargman]

<snip> But everyone seems to have a different opinion and some of these wrong opinions lead to trouble.

 

Agreed. I guess what the issue is to me is what, if anything should/can be done about the "wrong" opinions. I personally agree with the philosophy that it's better managed within the hobby/sport, but I'm admittedly new enough not to know how difficult it could be to change rules/guidelines, much less "police" them. It seems to me that some sort of reform to either the reviewing guidelines or private property guidelines would be a good place to start.

[+Markwell]

In this age of terrorism there are people that really think we are going to be terrorized so that should be considered. If you watch the TV show 24, you can see one theory on some of the places that terrorists could strike including shopping malls and schools. Is that a good guide?

 

Not really. We've got a whole forest preserve district in Chicago that only allows transparent containers because they're worried that opaque ones might be confused with bombs. Of course, they also pre-approve the locations, which are deep in the woods. Which leads to the question of why anyone would be afraid of finding a terrorist bomb hidden in a forest preserve, with no population within a mile. I would think people would be much more afraid of bomb-scare devices if they found one in a crowded and well-populated area. But the prohibition on opaque containers still exists.

 

So, what I'm saying is that if people find a container - ANY CONTAINER - and they are sufficiently paranoid, it doesn't matter if it's a mile into the woods, transparent, has a label that says "NOT A BOMB" or "FRIENDLY" on it. If people are paranoid, they'll think it's a bomb or something equally suspicious.

 

It's not the cachers that need a waiting period or education as much as it is those that police public land. If the muggle that found the box reports it to a ranger, and they say "Oh yea - that's a Geocache. Don't worry about it.", we'd all be better off.

 

I don't have ANY problem with a suggestion that people find several caches of varying types prior to placing a cache. I think it's a GREAT idea. But since everyone learns at a different pace, why mandate a certain number of caches or a certain time frame? I still maintain that such a restriction is not in the best interests of being "welcoming" to new cachers.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Markwell

[+TrailGators]

I don't have ANY problem with a suggestion that people find several caches of varying types prior to placing a cache. I think it's a GREAT idea. But since everyone learns at a different pace, why mandate a certain number of caches or a certain time frame? I still maintain that such a restriction is not in the best interests of being "welcoming" to new cachers.

I agree with you now. It's helps to discuss these kinds of issues to see the other points of view before I form a firmer opinion. Thanks.

[+TrailGators]

In this age of terrorism there are people that really think we are going to be terrorized so that should be considered. If you watch the TV show 24, you can see one theory on some of the places that terrorists could strike including shopping malls and schools. Is that a good guide?

So, what I'm saying is that if people find a container - ANY CONTAINER - and they are sufficiently paranoid, it doesn't matter if it's a mile into the woods, transparent, has a label that says "NOT A BOMB" or "FRIENDLY" on it. If people are paranoid, they'll think it's a bomb or something equally suspicious.

The bottomline is that terrorists are never going to strike the middle of the woods. So urbans are the caches that everyone needs to be more cautious with. So if it's questionable then don't hide it.

[+DocDiTTo]

Regardless of whether I agree with the OP's idea or not, the fact remains that if we don't police ourselves, legislators will do it for us. How many bomb threats will it take before someone says "Hey, this is costing taxpayers money, we gotta stop this!"?

 

How many police walk away from a "cache/bomb" situation thinking "That's a great hobby, I gotta try that" instead of "Great, some jack*** playing a stupid game is gonna make me late for dinner".

 

If all the publicity is negative, there will be repercussions -- for old cachers and newbies alike. I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is a simple solution, but I do know that I'd prefer my hobby not be legislated out of existence because of a few poorly placed caches. Look at South Carolina - a legislator gets a bug up her butt about something she percieves as being horribly bad, and there ya go... bomb squads weren't even involved with that situation.

 

Unfortunately poor cache placement isn't just a newbie problem, and therein lies the rub. It's not just bomb squad incidents either:

 

- At a local event recently, caches were placed on game lands and people went to hunt them, during deer season, wearing no safety orange. Aside from being a bad idea, that's also illegal. The authorities were called by some irate hunters who really didn't want cachers interfering with their hunting -- and rightfully so.

Are those officers of the law and hunters now more cacher friendly? I think not.

 

- One cache I went after was placed without permission behind a mini-market. The lone employee locked up the store and confronted me and a friend, acusing us of trying to steal something from behind the building. Luckily we were able to explain everything before he called the police on us. Is he a fan of cachers? Probably not, especially because something was hidden on his property without his permission.

 

How many similar incidents happen each and every day? Caches placed without permission, or in extremely bad locations, or made of material resembling what "Joe Public" imagines a bomb to look like, or hidden around playgrounds or schools where "stranger danger" is always a concern, or simply placed somewhere without consideration for the non-cachers who also use the area.

 

Newbies aren't the only cause of bad hides, but they are more apt to make mistakes simply because they're new. Some sort of education should certainly be in order before you hide your first cache. And maybe the review process could use some tweaking in order to ensure that problem caches are dealt with quickly by us geocachers, rather than legal authorities who would rather put an end to our game than be bothered by any inconvenience it causes.

[+TrailGators]

Interesting article today about the most recent incident in New Hampshire. The article also mentions another recent incident of a cache being found near a highway bridge:

 

Geocacher expresses regret over leaving box behind Shaw's

 

By MICHAEL GOOT

Portsmouth Bureau Chief

mgoot@fosters.com

 

PORTSMOUTH — Charles Lord never imagined his duct taping a metallic box the size of an Altoids tin to an electrical panel behind the Shaw's supermarket on Lafayette Road would cause such a fuss.

 

The 48-year-old printing press operator from Rochester said he was simply taking part in a new computer-based hike-and-seek game that uses global position systems to locate prizes.

 

Now he has nothing but regrets for the to-do he unintentionally caused with emergency responders. It won't stop him from continuing to play the game, though.

 

"I think there was a little overreaction," he said.

 

Relatively new to the game, Lord said he wished other members of the gaming community — called geocachers — had tipped him off that a Shaw's makes for a poor location choice. Geocaching rules prohibit people from placing caches on private property without permission.

 

"I would have taken it down right away. But unfortunately that didn't happen and this whole thing took place. I just heard my name on Channel 9. This is my 15-minutes-of-fame that I did not want," he said.

 

Nevertheless, the incident has not soured him on the hobby, although he plans to lay low until the spring.

 

"Besides, it's too cold," he said.

 

If anything, he hopes the publicity may generate more interest in geocaching. "It's fun. It's not like the GPS takes you right to this cache. You have to have common sense and smarts to figure out where it is — what it's there for. I 've discovered that I really don't like urban caching. I'd rather do it in the woods. That's where it's really fun," he said.

 

He said he has taken a considerable amount of hits from the online community, which he understands.

 

"There is no excuse for ignorance of the rules. We all make mistakes. You show me a person who hasn't made a mistake and I'll show you a liar," he said.

 

All caches must be submitted to the geocaching website at www.geocaching.com. Also, caches should never be placed on or near active railroad tracks, military installations, U.S. National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Services property, highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools and airports, according to the website.

 

Lord said he has also received supportive emails. People on the message boards at geocaching.com expressed concern whether law enforcement overreacted. Others did not want these incidents to spoil this hobby.

 

Lord learned police had confiscated his cache through the online community. He contacted police and asked to have his cache returned to him. Lt. Rodney McQuate emailed him back on Monday, telling him to come to the station or call him. Shortly after this point, Lord said the story "exploded" in the media.

 

He said he talked with police on Tuesday. He did not want to get into details but said he would likely call back on Friday or Saturday to see if there is a way to resolve the situation.

 

Sgt. Russell Russo confirmed police will speak with Lord in the next few days but it is too early to say how the situation will be resolved.

 

Lord has been practicing the hobby for about three months and has a GPS system in his car. While on vacation, he began surfing the Internet and stumbled across geocaching. He found his first cache on Nov. 10 — the day before Portsmouth Police found a cache near the Interstate 95 Piscataqua River Bridge, so he did not hide that one.

Edited February 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+GrizzlyJohn]

All of this talk about waiting periods etc. got me to thinking about one cache that was place a few years back.

 

It was buried, had food in it, maybe even other items that are not allowed. I don't think he had permission to place it. Not one of the safest places to park to go find it. Not really much of a view. You get the idea, a cache that after finding a few most people would know better than to place.

 

It was placed by a total noob. It was his first hide and he hid it without even finding any other caches. I was not caching then but my understanding is that it caused a stir.

 

The cacher does not come around here too often and I don't think he even really caches that much anymore. What was his name .... oh yeah ... Dave Ulmer.

 

I guess we all live and learn.

[+TrailGators]

All of this talk about waiting periods etc. got me to thinking about one cache that was place a few years back.

 

It was buried, had food in it, maybe even other items that are not allowed. I don't think he had permission to place it. Not one of the safest places to park to go find it. Not really much of a view. You get the idea, a cache that after finding a few most people would know better than to place.

 

It was placed by a total noob. It was his first hide and he hid it without even finding any other caches. I was not caching then but my understanding is that it caused a stir.

 

The cacher does not come around here too often and I don't think he even really caches that much anymore. What was his name .... oh yeah ... Dave Ulmer.

 

I guess we all live and learn.

 

 

[+WeatherednBoston]

I attended an event last night in NH and on the way I found this cache....looks like the same thing that the police found...this is what has caused such a stir lol Looks harmless to me!

 

 

 

When I got home I found this one archived...it wasnt even near an electrical component...it was in a guardrail...so sad that everyone up there in NH are archiving the caches hidden like this.

 

At the event last night I heard that the guy was FINED for the electric box placement... Poor guy!

[+sbell111]

I never said that all bridges were forbidden. ...

Really???

... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. ...

You have a way of nit-picking everything. It is really annoying. I was speaking in general terms. Obviously, I meant the type of bridge that the guidelines outline....

To support your idea that a waiting period should be required, you made the argument that people twist the guidelines. The example you used was that caches are not allowed on bridges, but people argue that it's OK to put caches on bridges if they are not 'major' bridges (whatever that is).

... The problem I see with the guidelines is that there are people on these threads that cite exceptions almost every guideline. ... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. However, if the bridge in not a major bridge than it's some argue that it's OK. So now we need to figure out where the line really is. ...

Your argument was flawed because the guidelines only specifically disallow caches on highway bridges.

 

I think that it is totally appropriate to point out the flaw in the argument that you were trying to use to support your main thesis. The fact that it annoys you when people find flaws with your arguments doesn't really trouble me in the least.

Edited February 8, 2007 by sbell111

[The Vargman]

Regardless of whether I agree with the OP's idea or not, the fact remains that if we don't police ourselves, legislators will do it for us. How many bomb threats will it take before someone says "Hey, this is costing taxpayers money, we gotta stop this!"?

 

<snip>

Unfortunately poor cache placement isn't just a newbie problem, and therein lies the rub. It's not just bomb squad incidents either:

 

<snip>

How many similar incidents happen each and every day? Caches placed without permission, or in extremely bad locations, or made of material resembling what "Joe Public" imagines a bomb to look like, or hidden around playgrounds or schools where "stranger danger" is always a concern, or simply placed somewhere without consideration for the non-cachers who also use the area.

 

Newbies aren't the only cause of bad hides, but they are more apt to make mistakes simply because they're new. Some sort of education should certainly be in order before you hide your first cache. And maybe the review process could use some tweaking in order to ensure that problem caches are dealt with quickly by us geocachers, rather than legal authorities who would rather put an end to our game than be bothered by any inconvenience it causes.

*quote edited for length

 

Ok. I like and agree with a LOT of what DocDiTTo says in this post. He made a point I am for a bit more finite. I was focusing on the more obvious urban caches that cause issues, and he did a great job of pointing out that it is not limited to the poorly placed urban caches on private property.

 

Personally, I see that there is a need for something. I'm not sure what the something is. In response to the OP suggestion, I'd have to agree with the fact that that is probably not the best solution out there (honestly, no offense intended). Because I don't know enough about the review process for caches, forgive me if I sound ignorant in my suggestion, but it would seem to me that this is the most logical place for the "buck" to stop.

 

Now, I understand that getting written permission for EVERY cache on private property (in which I'll include hunting grounds, etc.) and reviewing all the currently available caches for private property guidelines is an enormous task to say the least. So, what's wrong with making both the owners and cachers accountable, and making it easier to do this through some redesign?

 

Feel free to pick apart these suggested mods/put your own spin on it (I've got tough skin ):

1. Make it easy for a logger to question the validity/safety/social responsibilty of a cache by adding some sort of "please review this cache more throroughly" button to the cache page.

I make this suggestion with some trepidation because I understand e-mailing a reviewer can be done, but this is A. not anonymous and B. not something newer cachers may even know about, and C. people that don't frequent the forums may even think of. -just a few thoughts

 

2. Make the cachers that log finds responsible too. Make it clear that they are to report any suspicious caches to their reviewer. This could be done as a sending out an e-mail or even as a disclaimer at the top of every cache page.

 

What if they don't comply or are a multiple offender? I offer the suggestion of account suspensions and losing their ability to log finds/post caches for an agreed upon period based on severity. I'm probably making "Crazy lunatic" suggestions that are way too hard to implement, but I'd at least like to hear the counterpoints as to why my ideas stink. Perhaps I can come up with some even worse ideas then.

 

*edited cuz I can't proofread gooder

Edited February 8, 2007 by The Vargman

[+sbell111]

... What if they don't comply or are a multiple offender? I offer the suggestion of account suspensions and losing their ability to log finds/post caches for an agreed upon period based on severity. ...

I'm concerned that this would result in crazed ex-cachers who would plunder their area's caches.

[The Vargman]

... What if they don't comply or are a multiple offender? I offer the suggestion of account suspensions and losing their ability to log finds/post caches for an agreed upon period based on severity. ...

I'm concerned that this would result in crazed ex-cachers who would plunder their area's caches.

True. And I point I hadn't considered. I'll agree that that is a possibility and not good if it were to occur. However, is that better or worse than allowing the poorly placed caches to exist and (at worst) cause legislation that dictates how (if at all) caching can be done?

[+TrailGators]

I never said that all bridges were forbidden. ...

Really???

... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. ...

You have a way of nit-picking everything. It is really annoying. I was speaking in general terms. Obviously, I meant the type of bridge that the guidelines outline....

To support your idea that a waiting period should be required, you made the argument that people twist the guidelines. The example you used was that caches are not allowed on bridges, but people argue that it's OK to put caches on bridges if they are not 'major' bridges (whatever that is).

... The problem I see with the guidelines is that there are people on these threads that cite exceptions almost every guideline. ... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. However, if the bridge in not a major bridge than it's some argue that it's OK. So now we need to figure out where the line really is. ...

Your argument was flawed because the guidelines only specifically disallow caches on highway bridges.

 

I think that it is totally appropriate to point out the flaw in the argument that you were trying to use to support your main thesis. The fact that it annoys you when people find flaws with your arguments doesn't really trouble me in the least.

Yes, I'm working on my doctoral thesis in civil engineering on the effect of putting caches under bridges.... Look my general statement about "bridges" was 95% accurate. I admit I should have used some adjective to narrow it down so you wouldn't think I meant all bridges. How about adjectives like "big" or "major." It that clearer? "Highway" is clear but there are more bridges than just highway bridges that are inappropriate places to put caches. There are gray areas and it's the gray areas that lead to trouble. That was my point. So would you like to talk about my point or lost lost in semantics?

[+sbell111]

I never said that all bridges were forbidden. ...

Really???

... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. ...

You have a way of nit-picking everything. It is really annoying. I was speaking in general terms. Obviously, I meant the type of bridge that the guidelines outline....

To support your idea that a waiting period should be required, you made the argument that people twist the guidelines. The example you used was that caches are not allowed on bridges, but people argue that it's OK to put caches on bridges if they are not 'major' bridges (whatever that is).

... The problem I see with the guidelines is that there are people on these threads that cite exceptions almost every guideline. ... For example, you are not supposed to place a cache under a bridge. However, if the bridge in not a major bridge than it's some argue that it's OK. So now we need to figure out where the line really is. ...

Your argument was flawed because the guidelines only specifically disallow caches on highway bridges.

 

I think that it is totally appropriate to point out the flaw in the argument that you were trying to use to support your main thesis. The fact that it annoys you when people find flaws with your arguments doesn't really trouble me in the least.

Yes, I'm working on my doctoral thesis in civil engineering on the effect of putting caches under bridges....

Good Grief.

Look my general statement about "bridges" was 95% accurate. I admit I should have used some adjective to narrow it down so you wouldn't think I meant all bridges. How about adjectives like "big" or "major." It that clearer? "Highway" is clear but there are more bridges than just highway bridges that are inappropriate places to put caches. There are gray areas and it's the gray areas that lead to trouble. That was my point. So would you like to talk about my point or lost lost in semantics?

The guidelines specifically disallow caches on highway bridges and allow for caches on other bridges to be refused. Why is this a problem? Edited February 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Look my general statement about "bridges" was 95% accurate. I admit I should have used some adjective to narrow it down so you wouldn't think I meant all bridges. How about adjectives like "big" or "major." It that clearer? "Highway" is clear but there are more bridges than just highway bridges that are inappropriate places to put caches. There are gray areas and it's the gray areas that lead to trouble. That was my point. So would you like to talk about my point or lost lost in semantics?

The guidelines specifically disallow caches on highway bridges and allow for caches on other bridges to be refused. Why is this a problem?

The problem is that "other bridges" is a gray area. Also distance from highway or main bridge is a gray area. Again....My point is that these gray areas lead to confusion/misunderstanding and ultimately poor cache placements that we get to read about in newspapers.

[+sbell111]

Look my general statement about "bridges" was 95% accurate. I admit I should have used some adjective to narrow it down so you wouldn't think I meant all bridges. How about adjectives like "big" or "major." It that clearer? "Highway" is clear but there are more bridges than just highway bridges that are inappropriate places to put caches. There are gray areas and it's the gray areas that lead to trouble. That was my point. So would you like to talk about my point or lost lost in semantics?

The guidelines specifically disallow caches on highway bridges and allow for caches on other bridges to be refused. Why is this a problem?

The problem is that "other bridges" is a gray area. Also distance from highway or main bridge is a gray area. Again....My point is that these gray areas lead to confusion/misunderstanding and ultimately poor cache placements that we get to read about in newspapers.

We need the grey areas. If we didn't allow for grey areas, the guidelines would be 87 pages long and some things still wouldn't be addressed.

 

It should also be noted that many of things that are in the grey areas are situational.

Edited February 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Look my general statement about "bridges" was 95% accurate. I admit I should have used some adjective to narrow it down so you wouldn't think I meant all bridges. How about adjectives like "big" or "major." It that clearer? "Highway" is clear but there are more bridges than just highway bridges that are inappropriate places to put caches. There are gray areas and it's the gray areas that lead to trouble. That was my point. So would you like to talk about my point or lost lost in semantics?

The guidelines specifically disallow caches on highway bridges and allow for caches on other bridges to be refused. Why is this a problem?

The problem is that "other bridges" is a gray area. Also distance from highway or main bridge is a gray area. Again....My point is that these gray areas lead to confusion/misunderstanding and ultimately poor cache placements that we get to read about in newspapers.

We need the grey areas. If we didn't allow for grey areas, the guidelines would be 87 pages long and some things still wouldn't be addressed.

 

It should also be noted that many of things that are in the grey areas are situational.

"Caches should not be placed on any bridge maintained by either or State or Federal Govts, which used for vehicular traffic." This is less gray and it didn't take 87 pages....

[+sbell111]

The guidelines specifically disallow caches on highway bridges and allow for caches on other bridges to be refused. Why is this a problem?

The problem is that "other bridges" is a gray area. Also distance from highway or main bridge is a gray area. Again....My point is that these gray areas lead to confusion/misunderstanding and ultimately poor cache placements that we get to read about in newspapers.

We need the grey areas. If we didn't allow for grey areas, the guidelines would be 87 pages long and some things still wouldn't be addressed.

 

It should also be noted that many of things that are in the grey areas are situational.

"Caches should not be placed on any bridge maintained by either or State or Federal Govts, which used for vehicular traffic." This is less gray and it didn't take 87 pages....

Sure, your proposed change was concise, but it dragged in thousands of bridges that were not previously included in the guideline restriction (and likely would not need to be included) and it forces reviewers to figure out who is responsible for maintaining bridges.

[+TrailGators]

The guidelines specifically disallow caches on highway bridges and allow for caches on other bridges to be refused. Why is this a problem?

The problem is that "other bridges" is a gray area. Also distance from highway or main bridge is a gray area. Again....My point is that these gray areas lead to confusion/misunderstanding and ultimately poor cache placements that we get to read about in newspapers.

We need the grey areas. If we didn't allow for grey areas, the guidelines would be 87 pages long and some things still wouldn't be addressed.

 

It should also be noted that many of things that are in the grey areas are situational.

"Caches should not be placed on any bridge maintained by either or State or Federal Govts, which used for vehicular traffic." This is less gray and it didn't take 87 pages....

Sure, your proposed change was concise, but it dragged in thousands of bridges that were not previously included in the guideline restriction (and likely would not need to be included) and it forces reviewers to figure out who is responsible for maintaining bridges.

Reviewers have to check all non-highway bridges now. I think you forgot that fact:"Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive): Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports. "

 

The thought I had is that expanding the description would reduce the number of bridge caches that being submitted because people (that can read) wouldn't be putting caches under many other bridges, that aren't highway bridges, that could be also be terrorist targets. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution (especially for the newbies)?

[+sbell111]

The guidelines specifically disallow caches on highway bridges and allow for caches on other bridges to be refused. Why is this a problem?

The problem is that "other bridges" is a gray area. Also distance from highway or main bridge is a gray area. Again....My point is that these gray areas lead to confusion/misunderstanding and ultimately poor cache placements that we get to read about in newspapers.

We need the grey areas. If we didn't allow for grey areas, the guidelines would be 87 pages long and some things still wouldn't be addressed.

 

It should also be noted that many of things that are in the grey areas are situational.

"Caches should not be placed on any bridge maintained by either or State or Federal Govts, which used for vehicular traffic." This is less gray and it didn't take 87 pages....

Sure, your proposed change was concise, but it dragged in thousands of bridges that were not previously included in the guideline restriction (and likely would not need to be included) and it forces reviewers to figure out who is responsible for maintaining bridges.

Reviewers have to check all non-highway bridges now. I think you forgot that fact:"Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive): Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports. "

I'm not forgetting that, at all. In fact, my two posts in red above make that very clear.

The thought I had is that expanding the description would reduce the number of bridge caches that being submitted because people (that can read) wouldn't be putting caches under many other bridges, that aren't highway bridges, that could be also be terrorist targets. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution (especially for the newbies)?

Your expansion would both rule out bridges that need not be ruled out and make it difficult for the reviewers to manage the guideline because it would be difficult to determine who maintains the various bridges.

[+sbell111]

Why don't you start a new thread regarding your desire to change the guidelines regarding bridges. I'm concerned that some interested parties won't notice the suggestion in this thread.

[+baloo&bd]

So I am clear, how long does someone need to be a reviewer before they can hide a cache under a gray bridge near the interstate?

 

Edited February 8, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+TrailGators]

Why don't you start a new thread regarding your desire to change the guidelines regarding bridges. I'm concerned that some interested parties won't notice the suggestion in this thread.

I have switched over to the a new bridge thread to discuss this. Anyhow, you helped prove my point which was that the guidelines require a clear understanding of important concepts. IMHO, it takes time for new cachers to get a clear understanding of the guidelines. Both cachers and reviewers must very carefully determine which public structures could be deemed as possible terrorists targets. I think some people are very loose and some are very tight. I think it would be wise to any newbie to wait to place any cache in a public area until they have developed a clear understanding of all the guidelines.

[+StarBrand]

Why don't you start a new thread regarding your desire to change the guidelines regarding bridges. I'm concerned that some interested parties won't notice the suggestion in this thread.

I have switched over to the a new bridge thread to discuss this. Anyhow, you helped prove my point which was that the guidelines require a clear understanding of important concepts. IMHO, it takes time for new cachers to get a clear understanding of the guidelines. Both cachers and reviewers must very carefully determine which public structures could be deemed as possible terrorists targets. I think some people are very loose and some are very tight. I think it would be wise to any newbie to wait to place any cache in a public area until they have developed a clear understanding of all the guidelines.

I've been at it for more than 5 years and I am still not clear on the bridge point........sigh

[+TrailGators]

Why don't you start a new thread regarding your desire to change the guidelines regarding bridges. I'm concerned that some interested parties won't notice the suggestion in this thread.

I have switched over to the a new bridge thread to discuss this. Anyhow, you helped prove my point which was that the guidelines require a clear understanding of important concepts. IMHO, it takes time for new cachers to get a clear understanding of the guidelines. Both cachers and reviewers must very carefully determine which public structures could be deemed as possible terrorists targets. I think some people are very loose and some are very tight. I think it would be wise to any newbie to wait to place any cache in a public area until they have developed a clear understanding of all the guidelines.

I've been at it for more than 5 years and I am still not clear on the bridge point........sigh

Yes, you and a lot of people. I hide all my caches off trails, so I don't have to worry about it. I get worried when I keep reading article after article about caches in the gray area that caused a big ruckus. I'm sure that there are a lot more incidents than are reported in these threads.

[+tozainamboku]

Why don't you start a new thread regarding your desire to change the guidelines regarding bridges. I'm concerned that some interested parties won't notice the suggestion in this thread.

I have switched over to the a new bridge thread to discuss this. Anyhow, you helped prove my point which was that the guidelines require a clear understanding of important concepts. IMHO, it takes time for new cachers to get a clear understanding of the guidelines. Both cachers and reviewers must very carefully determine which public structures could be deemed as possible terrorists targets. I think some people are very loose and some are very tight. I think it would be wise to any newbie to wait to place any cache in a public area until they have developed a clear understanding of all the guidelines.

I agree that the guidelines require a clear understanding of important concepts. That understanding does not come from geocaching experience alone. It might not even come from geocaching experience at all, since the more you cache the more likely you will find caches that are legitimate exceptions to the guidelines (e.g. explicit permission given), were placed before the current guidelines and grandfathered, or just slipped through the review process. Understanding of the concepts behind the guidelines come from discussing them in forums or with other geocachers and from being aware of current events and the impact on society. Any cache, no matter where it is placed, what it looks like, or how it is labeled might get reported as suspicious. Hopefully, law enforcement will be aware of geocaching and be able to make educated assessments of the situation to avoid over reacting. Cleary (as last weeks Boston incident, not involving a geocache, shows) the police and politicians will sometimes over-react. This may not be a bad thing - it is better to err on the side of caution. This should not stop us from hiding caches. If we understand the rationale and concepts behind the guidelines we can reduce the chance that a cache will become a problem.

[+TrailGators]

If we understand the rationale and concepts behind the guidelines we can reduce the chance that a cache will become a problem.

I think most of us do. The problem caches are caused by a minority. What a lot of people don't realize is that they are liable for their caches. If these scares continue to get more frequent, then the hammer is going to come down on the violator(s) to send out a clear message. I'm not sure what the penalty will be, but I'm sure that it's not worth it.