Please give me your opinion on my archived Cache!

[+Prime Suspect]

Actually, that's not the only issue for matches, lighters, and the like. These items have been known to spontaneously combust under the right circumstances.

 

This is basically nonsense. If these things spontaneously combusted, even in rare instances, with hundreds of millions of vehicles, we'd be seeing car fires all over the place every summer. I've never in my life heard or read of a single instance of this happening. If it happens it is so rare as to be a non issue. A chunk of flint falling on an ammo box might be more of a danger.

 

here's a link that seems to confirm that.

 

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode65 If you don't like their science feel free to let THEM know.

 

bwmick

 

What they were investigating was totally bogus (a spark from a welding torch setting off a lighter). Unfortunately, that doesn't mean lighters don't spontaneously explode. THEY DO.

 

From Snopes:

 

No welders working for Pacific Railroad or any other employer had been killed by exploding lighters, nor have any been killed in the years since the rumor first appeared. Yet even though the "welders killed by an exploding lighter" legend isn't true, it does not necessarily follow that butane lighters are completely safe and will never explode. In the legend, all it takes is an errant spark to set them off, but the chilling reality is that even well-constructed disposable lighters can — and have — blown up when left in too warm an environment. Leaving a lighter in a sunlit car or merely walking around with one in a pocket during a heatwave can be all it takes to turn a 99¢ convenience item into an explosion. Heat-induced pressure builds up inside, eventually creating too much force to be contained by the materials used in the lighter's housing. Some of these lighters have exploded in the pockets of jackets and shirts or gone bang! while lying on the dashboards of cars.

 

[...]

 

In 1985, 66-year-old Ethel L. Smith of Pennsylvania died from injuries sustained, it was asserted, when a Bic butane lighter exploded in her hands while she was using it to light her cigarette, and her estate sued Bic for $11 million. The disposition of the case is unknown. (Bic is known for resolving lawsuits against it out of court and, as part of the settlements, insisting the plaintiffs agree to refrain from discussing their cases. Information is thus very hard to come by about the lawsuits said to have been brought against Bic over the years, including whether plaintiffs were ultimately able to prove their loved ones had died as a result of what they'd claimed.)

 

Noted folklorist Jan Brunvand concluded the folk version of the disposable lighter accident involving welders was untrue but the actual danger presented by the lighters was real. "The folk stories got the details wrong, but preserved the memories of such accidents that out-of-court settlements have suppressed for years."

 

So, yeah, putting a lighter in an ammo can - not the brightest idea in the world.

[+Glenn]

No where in guidelines are matches specifically mentioned. The list of specifically banned items are "explosives, fireworks, ammo, lighters, knives (including pocket knives and multi-tools), drugs, alcohol [and] other illicit material".

Glenn, let me patch up a few of those MAC truck sized holes in this allegedly questionable logic. You claim that explosives, fireworks, ammo, lighters, knives (including pocket knives and multi-tools), drugs, alcohol [and] other illicit material are banned. In this, I would say you are incorrect. Quoting directly from the guidelines, it says;

 

Cache Contents

 

Use your common sense in most cases. Explosives, fireworks, ammo, lighters, knives (including pocket knives and multi-tools), drugs, alcohol or other illicit material shouldn't be placed in a cache.

 

Nowhere in the guidelines does it mention the items you claim are banned. It just says use common sense, and that those items shouldn't be placed in a cache. The same common sense that Groundspeak is asking for in reference to lighters can be applied to matches.

 

If I placed a cache and filled it full of Glock handguns, (unloaded of course), should I gripe when a reviewer refuses to publish it? After all, handguns aren't illicit by any definition, and they definitely are not on the list of items that shouldn't be placed in a cache.

 

<i>Shouldn't be placed in a cache</i> sure sounds like Groundspeak is prohibiting (another word for banning) those specific items in caches. It seems that the reviewers agree with this view or this thread would have never been started.

 

That still doesn't change the fact that some think matches should be prohibited because they exhibit a similar fire start capability as another item on the <i>shouldn't be place in caches</i> list, lighters. I've seen caches started with magnifying glasses, sticks/twigs, batteries, steel wool, etc. (all items that can be used to start a fire) in the cache and listed on the cache page. None of these items were considered questionable by the reviewer.

[Clan Riffster]

<i>Shouldn't be placed in a cache</i> sure sounds like Groundspeak is prohibiting (another word for banning) those specific items in caches.

I think what Groundspeak is saying, is that these items shouldn't be in caches. I'd be willing to bet that the folks who typed up the guidelines were at least nominally competent in the English language, and probably recognize the difference between "shouldn't" and "can't". If they wanted to say these items cannot be placed in caches, they most likely know where those letters are on the keyboard. But no, they didn't choose to say "cannot". They chose to say "shouldn't". "Cannot" equates to banning. "Shouldn't" does not.

 

Later in this same guideline, TPTB suggest that caches with these items in them "may" be disabled. Had there been an actual ban on these items, I would think that they would've said these caches "will" be disabled.

 

It is my opinion, from repeated reading of the guidelines and from talking to reviewers, that this cache was denied because the reviewer either interpreted the guidelines to include matches with lighters and other objects that "shouldn't" be in a cache, or they believed that matches are not a good thing to leave in a cache and exercised their discretion to prevent the listing. Not because the items are "banned".

 

But that's just my opinion. That & $8.00 will get you a carpy cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

So really I just need to remove the matches, could have avoided hours of research and debate if the reviewer just suggested this from the get go?

 

I think the reviewer left you with the best window to get the cache published "as is". Rather than tell you what should or shouldn't be in the cache, all he asked for is contact info.

 

DCC

[+Glenn]

<i>Shouldn't be placed in a cache</i> sure sounds like Groundspeak is prohibiting (another word for banning) those specific items in caches.

I think what Groundspeak is saying, is that these items shouldn't be in caches. I'd be willing to bet that the folks who typed up the guidelines were at least nominally competent in the English language, and probably recognize the difference between "shouldn't" and "can't". If they wanted to say these items cannot be placed in caches, they most likely know where those letters are on the keyboard. But no, they didn't choose to say "cannot". They chose to say "shouldn't". "Cannot" equates to banning. "Shouldn't" does not.

 

Later in this same guideline, TPTB suggest that caches with these items in them "may" be disabled. Had there been an actual ban on these items, I would think that they would've said these caches "will" be disabled.

 

It is my opinion, from repeated reading of the guidelines and from talking to reviewers, that this cache was denied because the reviewer either interpreted the guidelines to include matches with lighters and other objects that "shouldn't" be in a cache, or they believed that matches are not a good thing to leave in a cache and exercised their discretion to prevent the listing. Not because the items are "banned".

 

But that's just my opinion. That & $8.00 will get you a carpy cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

As your description, reviewer are interpreting the shouldn'tbe in cahces as don't publish a cache listing with anything on the <i>shouldn't be in caches</i> list listed as part of the cache contents. That sure sounds like a ban on those items to me.

[Clan Riffster]

Personally, I think a true ban on these items might not be such a bad thing. It would certainly clear up a lot of grey areas. But then again, that would just add a bunch more rules to a game where common sense is supposed to prevail. In this case, the reviewer posted that they cache could go forward as is, with all the forbidden fruit inside, if the owner posted who provided specific permission for the items. That's why it doesn't seem like a ban to me.

[+Renegade Knight]

Personally, I think a true ban on these items might not be such a bad thing. It would certainly clear up a lot of grey areas. But then again, that would just add a bunch more rules to a game where common sense is supposed to prevail. In this case, the reviewer posted that they cache could go forward as is, with all the forbidden fruit inside, if the owner posted who provided specific permission for the items. That's why it doesn't seem like a ban to me.

 

Same situation, change it to permission from a ranger to permission from the State Transportation Deparment to Carry matches in your car. Who do you even call to get the time of day as to permission to transport a book of matches on the state highway system inside your car? Now if I was transporting a truckload of sulpher to make matches from, or even a truckload of matches destined for WalMart, I could easily figure out the answer. The system is designed to handle that. Just not one book.

 

As for the ban. I think the ban on matches is a true ban. I'm not sure why they brought up the permission issue. The only reason I can see is the ever classic "pass the buck" to a source that is likely to say no. Like when my daughter asked to die her hair blue for her birthday. Mom said "ask your dad, if he says yes...".

[Clan Riffster]

Perhaps. I can't picture any of our reviewers being the "pass the buck" type though. Seems if matches were truly banned, the response from the reviewer would've been different. Maybe?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I think what Groundspeak is saying, is that these items shouldn't be in caches. I'd be willing to bet that the folks who typed up the guidelines were at least nominally competent in the English language, and probably recognize the difference between "shouldn't" and "can't". If they wanted to say these items cannot be placed in caches, they most likely know where those letters are on the keyboard. But no, they didn't choose to say "cannot". They chose to say "shouldn't". "Cannot" equates to banning. "Shouldn't" does not.

I found it semantically interesting when my reviewer said that 'additional waypoints' were available for my multi. S/he did not publish the cache. Note that 'additional waypoints' were 'available', not that they were 'required'. Cache did not get published until I supplied the 'additional waypoints'. I think the idea is good. I should have taken advantage of it. Still not sure that it is 'required'. But, don't expect to get a multi or mystery published without.

Semantics, and the interpretation thereof.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

If Groundspeak produced a list of banned items then any item not on that list would automatically be considered safe by default, even if it was an oversite that it wasn't included.

Keeping the language slightly vague actually gives them better control over what's allowed than being specific would.

[Clan Riffster]

Keeping the language slightly vague actually gives them better control over what's allowed than being specific would.

We have a winner!

[+Glenn]

Personally, I think a true ban on these items might not be such a bad thing. It would certainly clear up a lot of grey areas. But then again, that would just add a bunch more rules to a game where common sense is supposed to prevail. In this case, the reviewer posted that they cache could go forward as is, with all the forbidden fruit inside, if the owner posted who provided specific permission for the items. That's why it doesn't seem like a ban to me.

 

I image it wouldn't feel like a ban because none of items in that cache are on the shouldn't be in a cache list.

 

What got me in to the conversation was the comment about matches not being allowed in caches because they like lighters can be used to start a fire. Since lighters are banned for that reason so should be matches when the argument. As evidenced by the actions of the reviewer matches which are not on the shouldn't be placed in caches list are considered questionable and not banned.

 

If Groundspeak produced a list of banned items then any item not on that list would automatically be considered safe by default, even if it was an oversite that it wasn't included.

Keeping the language slightly vague actually gives them better control over what's allowed than being specific would.

 

Groundspeak already has a list and everything else falls under questionable.

[+huggy_d1]

I watched this forum thread with much interest since I've personally worked with my local National Forest Rangers in the past to get a CITO authorized and to verify policy for caches I wanted to place. They didn't grant permission so much as they said, don't cause problems and we'll see how you prove yourselves to be responsible forest users.

 

I put these caches on a watchlist so I could see how they developed. It seems they were published after all - then subsequently archived.

 

There were 3 caches King O' the Chipmunks Nest of Nettles and The Bear's Den

 

If you take note, there is a note posted by the reviewer for all 3 caches as follows:

 

Archived per land manager policy (see attached email):

 

Geocaching is permitted as a dispersed recreation opportunity on our district but is not allowed in developed recreation sites. Developed sites are those that have parking areas,

rest-rooms, picnic tables, etc. Cascades is one of our more developed and most used sites and is not considered a dispersed rec opportunity. Plus it is a national recreation trail.

 

I would also like to add that we discourage any geocaches from containing implements of fire making. This is especially important in drought years but is also because one never knows who it is that will find the cache and we would not want to endanger the life of a child with non-family friendly items.

 

Thanks again for your efforts

 

Sheryl Lyles

Recreation Program Manager/Landscape Architect

Eastern Divide Ranger District

110 Southpark Drive

Blacksburg, VA 24060

540-953-3576

I post this here so others get the opportunity to see what that particular ranger district considers inappropriate for locations and for cache contents.

 

I am opting out of editorial. There seems to have been plenty already, a good bit of which was on point.

[+AlistairMacilherron]

Change the name from Firestarter log to compressed sawdust log. Firestarter sticks to compressed sawdust sticks. Matches to single use illuminating devices. It is really just that simple. People do this all the time such as dish washer “Hydro Ceramic Technician.” Pizza Deliver, “Professional food transporter.” Garbage man, “Sanitation Engineer.” Just Bulls#it the name so it is descriptive of what it really is but the curtain is pulled over the reviewers eyes.

[+SixDogTeam]

Change the name from Firestarter log to compressed sawdust log. Firestarter sticks to compressed sawdust sticks. Matches to single use illuminating devices. It is really just that simple. People do this all the time such as dish washer “Hydro Ceramic Technician.” Pizza Deliver, “Professional food transporter.” Garbage man, “Sanitation Engineer.” Just Bulls#it the name so it is descriptive of what it really is but the curtain is pulled over the reviewers eyes.

[Keystone]

Change the name from Firestarter log to compressed sawdust log. Firestarter sticks to compressed sawdust sticks. Matches to single use illuminating devices. It is really just that simple. People do this all the time such as dish washer “Hydro Ceramic Technician.” Pizza Deliver, “Professional food transporter.” Garbage man, “Sanitation Engineer.” Just Bulls#it the name so it is descriptive of what it really is but the curtain is pulled over the reviewers eyes.

Thank you for that bright ray of sunshine as I begin my morning. Folks, if you ever wonder why your perfectly normal, innocent cache seems to be scrutinized to the nth degree, it's because of people like this.

 

Oh, and knock off the potty language. This is your one free bite.

[+ScoutingWV]

<snip> so it is descriptive of what it really is but the curtain is pulled over the reviewers eyes.

 

How about learning to work with the reviewers instead of trying to get something past them?

[+ShadowAce]

It has been fun reading all the cachers saying that it is ok to leave those items, how the OP says the forest rangers encourage cachers to place caches in this area and have no problem with the contents.

 

It becomes even more interesting to read the archive note:

[green]Geocaching is permitted as a dispersed recreation opportunity on our district but is not allowed in developed recreation sites. Developed sites are those that have parking areas,

rest-rooms, picnic tables, etc. Cascades is one of our more developed and most used sites and is not considered a dispersed rec opportunity. Plus it is a national recreation trail.[/green]

 

[red]I would also like to add that we discourage any geocaches from containing implements of fire making. [/red]This is especially important in drought years but is also because one never knows who it is that will find the cache and we would not want to endanger the life of a child with non-family friendly items.

 

Thanks again for your efforts

 

Sheryl Lyles

Recreation Program Manager/Landscape Architect

Eastern Divide Ranger District

110 Southpark Drive

Blacksburg, VA 24060

540-953-3576

slyles@fs.fed.us

 

So it would appear that the reviewer was CORRECT, the cache owner was wrong and all the people who encouraged the cache owner to lie simply gave some bad information?

 

Very funny. Thanks for the laughs.

Yep human rights and personal liberty once more stepped on by the man.