Cache location IN WALL.

[+The HERB5]

I reported this a while ago and I'm the only who seems bothered about it.

 

The big pic at the bottom shows the wall; a ROMAN AQUADEUCT....

The smaller one to the left shows the cache container which is located in the end of the wall.

 

Surely there's a guideline that disallows this.

 

Cache gallery

[+jmbillings]

Not sure I follow; assuming the wall hasn't been damaged (the hole the cache sits in looks pretty natural) then what's the issue? Or am I missing something!

[+jerryo]

There's a ickle mousey near the cache.

[+Custheyder]

I think I agree with jmbillings. The hole looks like it was already there and the placement does not damage the wall in any way. If they had to remove loose bricks to find it, then there would almost certainly be an issue considering the age of the monument.

 

What would be the view if other rocks were used to partially fill the hole to conceal the cache? (exisiting hole, local stone which was not winkled loose to create the hole in the first place)

 

Cust.

[+The HERB5]

What would be the view if other rocks were used to partially fill the hole to conceal the cache? (exisiting hole, local stone which was not winkled loose to create the hole in the first place)

 

This is the case.

 

Seeing a cache located in the wall, suggests that the hole was made to put the cache in, whether it was or not.

[+careygang]

Two points really...

a - Its a foreign cache so why get excited about it

b - What about all the ones in the UK that are in Dry Stone Walls? I've seen several that break that rule. Let's get our own house in order before we complain about johnny foreigner. If we all get uptight about the inability of our fellow cachers to follow simple guidelines, we'd all be on tranquillizers...

[+jmbillings]

 

This is the case.

 

Seeing a cache located in the wall, suggests that the hole was made to put the cache in, whether it was or not.

 

*If* that's the case, then I would be in agreement - it's no different to drilling a hole in an ancient tree. Caches should always be placed in their natural environment without any damage being done. From the photos on the link, it's hard to say whether the stone was removed on purpose or not, so I don't know that I'd go on a mission to get the owner a telling off - i'd want some proof.

 

I do agree in principle tho

[+The HERB5]

 

This is the case.

 

Seeing a cache located in the wall, suggests that the hole was made to put the cache in, whether it was or not.

 

*If* that's the case, then I would be in agreement - it's no different to drilling a hole in an ancient tree. Caches should always be placed in their natural environment without any damage being done. From the photos on the link, it's hard to say whether the stone was removed on purpose or not, so I don't know that I'd go on a mission to get the owner a telling off - i'd want some proof.

 

I do agree in principle tho

I don't think it is important who created the hole in the wall, well I do but that's not the topic

 

It's the perception others could have of geocaching I have issue with.

Seeing a geocache container in a hole in a wall, gives the perception that it is okay to dig a hole in a wall.

[+The HERB5]

 

This is the case.

 

Seeing a cache located in the wall, suggests that the hole was made to put the cache in, whether it was or not.

 

*If* that's the case, then I would be in agreement - it's no different to drilling a hole in an ancient tree. Caches should always be placed in their natural environment without any damage being done. From the photos on the link, it's hard to say whether the stone was removed on purpose or not, so I don't know that I'd go on a mission to get the owner a telling off - i'd want some proof.

 

I do agree in principle tho

I don't think it is important who created the hole in the wall, well I do but that's not the topic

 

It's the perception others could have of geocaching I have issue with.

Seeing a geocache container in a hole in a wall, gives the perception that it is okay to dig a hole in a wall.

[+The HERB5]

a - Its a foreign cache so why get excited about it

I did the cache, thought it was a bit iffy and reported it. What's the problem ?

 

b - What about all the ones in the UK that are in Dry Stone Walls? I've seen several that break that rule.

When I do one I'll report it. Did you report the one's you saw ?

If not then how do we 'get our house in order' ?

 

And your point is ?

[+T.R.a.M.P.]

I don't think it is important who created the hole in the wall, well I do but that's not the topic

 

It's the perception others could have of geocaching I have issue with.

Seeing a geocache container in a hole in a wall, gives the perception that it is okay to dig a hole in a wall.

Another point here is that placing a cache IN an ancient monument means that the cache seekers have to probe around - and possibly do more damage

I have to admit that I found a cache in the earthworks at an ancient monument and did not report it - so I am certainly not perfect...

 

Trevor

[+Haggis Hunter]

a - Its a foreign cache so why get excited about it

I did the cache, thought it was a bit iffy and reported it. What's the problem ?

 

I think the point is that it is a foreign cache. 1. This is the UK forum nothing to do with us or our mods for that matter. 2. The rule about wall was borne out of GAGB negotiations and as far as I am aware it is a UK rule not a GC.com one.

 

Also why haven't you said anything in your log for the cache? Why if you had the intentions of reporting the cache, did you feel fit to drop a geocoin off when you done it. Surely if the reviewer agreed with your point the cache would have been archived possibly losing the coin if the owners decided to just leave it as geo rubbish?

[+Lotho]

Obviously i haven't been to the cache but it looks like from the picture that the hole was already there. However, you have found it and maybe it was clearer at GZ it was a purpose made hole...

[+The HERB5]

I think the point is that it is a foreign cache. 1. This is the UK forum nothing to do with us or our mods for that matter. 2. The rule about wall was borne out of GAGB negotiations and as far as I am aware it is a UK rule not a GC.com one.

I have reported it to the French reviewer, I'm asking for a 2nd opinion.

I'll just spend a year at night-school and learn French and then raise it on the French forum.

Or how about I raise it as a question about a hypothetical UK cache, would that be better ?

 

Also why haven't you said anything in your log for the cache?

I did make comments in the paper log.

Negative posts aren't always liked and can get deleted.

 

Why if you had the intentions of reporting the cache, did you feel fit to drop a geocoin off when you done it. Surely if the reviewer agreed with your point the cache would have been archived possibly losing the coin if the owners decided to just leave it as geo rubbish?

Hence the question to the Reviewer who I know speaks very good English.

I think a French Reviewer could speak with more tact in French then an I and therefore avoid an archive.

 

It's a great cache location, just not a great cache location

[+scottpa100]

I agree in general. A cache should bring you to an area to explore and enjoy. If the cache was placed 50m away from the Roman wall - then that would be perfectly okay.

[+Dizzley]

[i don't think it is important who created the hole in the wall, well I do but that's not the topic

 

It's the perception others could have of geocaching I have issue with.

Seeing a geocache container in a hole in a wall, gives the perception that it is okay to dig a hole in a wall.

I agree with Nebias and Haggis Hunter. You and I might be sensible enough to retrieve the cache sensitively, but a cache in a wall may encourage people to try digging around at the wrong spot in a wall. Also it's a question of image: I wouldn't want to place a cache inside a historic monument in the UK. Nearby - yes, inside it - no. Plus there's the guideline "Off limits - Caches placed in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans (examples may include archaeological or historic sites)."

 

Did the mouse log a find?

[+Johnmelad]

I reported this a while ago and I'm the only who seems bothered about it.

 

The big pic at the bottom shows the wall; a ROMAN AQUADEUCT....

The smaller one to the left shows the cache container which is located in the end of the wall.

 

Surely there's a guideline that disallows this.

 

Cache gallery

 

It was published by a reviewer, it's their job to decide on the appropriateness of the location, so why comment? You did it, you found it, keep stum and let others enjoy.

[+Padington]

I simply placed stones in front of the hole, but the hole is natural.

[+riviouveur]

Hence the question to the Reviewer who I know speaks very good English.

 

Thank you I lived in the UK for many years, and, like the French Prime Minister (François Fillon), my wife is Welsh, which helps.

 

You did indeed e-mail me about this cache in May and I asked the cache owner to confirm that the "traffic" of visitors to the cache would not cause an erosion of the wall. He told me that in his opinion there was little risk of damage. He's a fireman and so not an archeologist, but I think he is a careful person. I don't think that I told you his reply at the time, for which I apologize.

 

If you think there is a big problem then please log "Needs Archived" and we can take it to a different level.

 

riviouveur - "Groundspeak Volunteer Reviewer" pour la France.

 

Edit to say: I mentioned this thread to the cache owner, Padington, and he has replied in the post above this one. I think that as long as the stones which he placed are "obviously where the geocache is" then it should be no problem. I know that big, complicated walls with hundreds of possible hiding places are a different case for you in the UK.

Edited September 10, 2007 by riviouveur

[+naffita]

The problem with caches in dry stone walls is not the cache itself or the hole it may be placed in. The problem arises when someone goes to search for it and of course does not go immediately to the right place, they then start lifting stones and, if my experience is anything to go by, the stone never quite fits back in place. Multiply that by, say, ten wrong stones, and then by however many cachers come along and you have a lot of damage to the wall.

[+John Stead]

The problem with caches in dry stone walls is not the cache itself or the hole it may be placed in. The problem arises when someone goes to search for it and of course does not go immediately to the right place, they then start lifting stones and, if my experience is anything to go by, the stone never quite fits back in place. Multiply that by, say, ten wrong stones, and then by however many cachers come along and you have a lot of damage to the wall.

Exactly my thoughts - but (not wishing to stir it), did the Romans give permission?

[+sTeamTraen]

From the photo it doesn't look like a "dry" wall. The Romans built this stuff to last. Also, this is France, the cache doesn't get 10 visitors per week. I would hope that the cache owner would monitor the situation and archive the cache if it looks like the place is wearing away.

[+Kryten]

Exactly my thoughts - but (not wishing to stir it), did the Romans give permission?

 

And if they didn't give permission, what else have they ever done for us

[+jmbillings]

Romans? Pah, don't talk to me about Romans. Can't dig up my sodding garden without having to chuck out a load of their old unwanteds. Peeves me right off.

[+riviouveur]

I just re-read this topic and this post made me think a little:

 

a - Its a foreign cache so why get excited about it

 

One of the things that makes geocaching a great game is how similar it is wherever you go. In almost every country, cachers and caches "speak" the same language. So for me there are no "foreign" caches. If you see a cache which breaks the Groundspeak guidelines in another country, please bring it to the attention of the reviewer for that area. I was certainly very happy to hear from Nebias about this cache, even if for the moment it seems to me to be OK.

 

b - What about all the ones in the UK that are in Dry Stone Walls? I've seen several that break that rule. Let's get our own house in order before we complain about johnny foreigner.

 

As this point shows, there is also some room for local rules. We have some dry stone walls in France too and if I see a cache near one, I ask for it to be moved well away, so that there is no chance of the searcher thinking that the cache may be in the wall, even on a day with bad GPS reception. Just saying "the cache is not in the wall", does not help enough. Many people, especially touristes, do not or can not read the description. One day when we have an "Association Française du Géocaching" we will maybe have this as an official rule too.

 

Signed,

Johnny

 

(I apologise in advance to the moderators for going a little bit off topic)

Edited September 11, 2007 by riviouveur

[+jerryo]

Exactly my thoughts - but (not wishing to stir it), did the Romans give permission?

 

And if they didn't give permission, what else have they ever done for us

Aqueducts, sanitation, roads, ...

[+Sensei TSKC]

Exactly my thoughts - but (not wishing to stir it), did the Romans give permission?

 

And if they didn't give permission, what else have they ever done for us

Aqueducts, sanitation, roads, ...

Education...

[+Flyfishermanbob]

Exactly my thoughts - but (not wishing to stir it), did the Romans give permission?

 

And if they didn't give permission, what else have they ever done for us

Aqueducts, sanitation, roads, ...

Education...

 

 

Ice Cream ; Fish and Chips...

[Deceangi]

 

It was published by a reviewer, it's their job to decide on the appropriateness of the location, so why comment? You did it, you found it, keep stum and let others enjoy.

 

Reviewers rather you NOT KEEP STUM if you come across a issue with a cache. We work from only the information posted to the cache page and in any reviewer notes, and are not all seeing or knowing.

 

We are RELIANT on members of the caching community REPORTING issues to us.

 

There are several Landowner Placement Agreements which specifically Ban Dry Stone Walls as part of the Agreement. All it could take to have them withdraw permission for all caches covered by the agreement is one published cache, which the Reviewer did not know was in a Dry Stone wall to be discovered by a representative of that Landowner.

 

Anyone like to have guess at how many caches are on NT land alone?

 

[i've used Dry Stone Walls as just one example]

 

Please if you come across a issue which you feel needs reporting, whether it is covered by the guidelines or not, report it to a Reviewer. Ether by posting a SBA log or emailing one of us directly.

[+The HERB5]

Signed,

Johnny

 

Amazing, your name really is Johnny

 

PS Don't look at my favourite cache

[+Renegade Knight]

What would be the view if other rocks were used to partially fill the hole to conceal the cache? (exisiting hole, local stone which was not winkled loose to create the hole in the first place)

 

This is the case.

 

Seeing a cache located in the wall, suggests that the hole was made to put the cache in, whether it was or not.

 

If it's all perception then geocaching should just be terminated because a problem can be found with every cache. When all there is, is the perception then the truth doesn't matter.

 

The truth in this case is simple.

Was the hole made for the cache. Yes? Archive.

Are the finders of the cache causing harm in looking for the cache? Yes? Archive.

 

If the answer is no to both of the above then the cache is fine. BUT

If potential perception about the cache is all that matters. Then it's a risk assessment of the perception of harm. After all since something bad can be said for any cache (real or not) then either you draw the line somewhere or this activity just isn't viable.

[+Renegade Knight]

The problem with caches in dry stone walls is not the cache itself or the hole it may be placed in. The problem arises when someone goes to search for it and of course does not go immediately to the right place, they then start lifting stones and, if my experience is anything to go by, the stone never quite fits back in place. Multiply that by, say, ten wrong stones, and then by however many cachers come along and you have a lot of damage to the wall.

 

I have found this to be true of Keystone retaining walls. Simple as they are, finders can't put the top of the wall back together and leave it a snaggle toothed mess. In the US we tend not to have the more historic variety of all you have in the UK where the issue would be worse. I'm not a fan of retaining all hides and probably would be less so for the walls you guys have.

[+Johnmelad]

 

It was published by a reviewer, it's their job to decide on the appropriateness of the location, so why comment? You did it, you found it, keep stum and let others enjoy.

Anyone like to have guess at how many caches are on NT land alone?

 

You make my point, there are probably more on NT land than on FC land, but if one gets put out in one of these places and gets past the reviewer, people should keep stum.

 

If placed in a Dry Stone Wall it should be removed and archived, I have no problem with this.

 

It's people who themselves have caches on NT land who then report others for doing the same thing, that is annoying.

 

As my dear old departed Head Master would say, "Rules are for the abeyance of fools and a guide for the intelligent." You JML are a fool

[+Dizzley]

You make my point, there are probably more on NT land than on FC land, but if one gets put out in one of these places and gets past the reviewer, people should keep stum.

 

If placed in a Dry Stone Wall it should be removed and archived, I have no problem with this.

 

It's people who themselves have caches... ...who then report others for doing the same thing, that is annoying. <snip>

You need to operate a policy of some sort because you are dealing with organisations who make decisions based on policy. Keeping quiet will simply make things worse when any organisation cuts up rough about an individual case. They will judge you on that. Then they might have a closer look at other caches...

 

It's right to speak up about bad caches. But, as you say, hypocrisy is very irritating. Sorry, I can't help disagreeing with you. Stumm is dumb.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Dizzley

[+careygang]

I just re-read this topic and this post made me think a little:

 

a - Its a foreign cache so why get excited about it

 

One of the things that makes geocaching a great game is how similar it is wherever you go. In almost every country, cachers and caches "speak" the same language. So for me there are no "foreign" caches. If you see a cache which breaks the Groundspeak guidelines in another country, please bring it to the attention of the reviewer for that area. I was certainly very happy to hear from Nebias about this cache, even if for the moment it seems to me to be OK.

 

b - What about all the ones in the UK that are in Dry Stone Walls? I've seen several that break that rule. Let's get our own house in order before we complain about johnny foreigner.

 

As this point shows, there is also some room for local rules. We have some dry stone walls in France too and if I see a cache near one, I ask for it to be moved well away, so that there is no chance of the searcher thinking that the cache may be in the wall, even on a day with bad GPS reception. Just saying "the cache is not in the wall", does not help enough. Many people, especially touristes, do not or can not read the description. One day when we have an "Association Française du Géocaching" we will maybe have this as an official rule too.

 

Signed,

Johnny

 

(I apologise in advance to the moderators for going a little bit off topic)

I was just 'throwing a pebble in the pond' to see what spread outwards. I could not (and still do not) see why this one cache should be singled out for a special moan on this forum. What was the first line of the initial entry by nebias...

"I reported this a while ago and I'm the only who seems bothered about it."

So was this really a moan that you 'riviouveur' had not satisfied nebias when he complained?

That's the trouble with email and forums, people get all sorts of ideas that are not necessarily the intent of the writer...

[Deceangi]

You make my point, there are probably more on NT land than on FC land, but if one gets put out in one of these places and gets past the reviewer, people should keep stum.

 

Sorry but that attitude just creates a risk of a permanent ban on geocaches on all NT land. The NT at both regional and National level are aware of Geocaching, and there has been agreement negotiations at a National level and I believe on-going at a regional level. Ignoring cache issues, shows to Landowners/Managers that we are unable to police ourselves, meaning that they will be less willing to negotiate a placement agreement with us and more likely to Ban caching.

 

I'd suggest you look into the situation with caches in the New Forest, before the placement agreement was negotiated. And which has to be renewed each year, nearly 2 years of negotiations, with a permanent ban during negotiations has taught us that issues with caches especially on land owned by the larger land owners, risks not only the caches at the local level but nationally as well. Imagine a National ban by the NT and the affect it would have on UK caching, as many other landowners large and small would follow their example.

 

Geocaching in the UK is at a stage were we can no longer "Keep Stum" about issues, as the pastime is coming to the attention of more and more landowners, even the UK government is aware of caching.

[+scottpa100]

You make my point, there are probably more on NT land than on FC land, but if one gets put out in one of these places and gets past the reviewer, people should keep stum.

 

Geocaching in the UK is at a stage were we can no longer "Keep Stum" about issues, as the pastime is coming to the attention of more and more landowners, even the UK government is aware of caching.

 

I agree with Deceangi's comments. On one of my caches, a landowner specifically contacted me post-cache placement and after reading cache blurb to say thanks very much. He liked the reiteration of 'keeping to the paths, but enjoy the view. It is a private woodland.' type of thing. He was very appreciative of that. With a landowner who is whole heartedly supportive of this cache it just... gives you peace of mind and you know that the landowner is supportive of the cache placement within its hidey area ie he/she agrees it is not wrecking anything of value be it economic, ecological or indeed, in regard to this original thread conversation, archaeological.

[+The Wombles]

I'd suggest you look into the situation with caches in the New Forest, before the placement agreement was negotiated. And which has to be renewed each year, nearly 2 years of negotiations, with a permanent ban during negotiations has taught us that issues with caches especially on land owned by the larger land owners, risks not only the caches at the local level but nationally as well. Imagine a National ban by the NT and the affect it would have on UK caching, as many other landowners large and small would follow their example.

 

As the person who negotiated this agreement with the NF, I would like to clarify that the New Forest Forestry Commission placed a ban on caching precisely because they discovered caches which did not have permission. They found a cache, investigated geocaching, and then systematically removed all caches in the NF.

 

They did this to draw our attention to them, and then they very reasonably negotiated an agreement which enabled them to control and protect the land that they are responsible for. As soon as the negotations began, they returned all 27 caches that they had removed (that was my best finds in one day but I couldn't even log them ).

 

We (GAGB) are working on the NT. We've had local success for individual properties and are on the verge of an agreement from the first larger area.

 

GAGB members and committee have made huge progress in agreements, just check out my sig line. It would be all too easy to reverse that success.

[+Cryptik Souls Crew]

Plus there's the guideline "Off limits - Caches placed in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans (examples may include archaeological or historic sites)."

 

 

I own the nearest cache to the one in question here, it gets about 10 visits a year, as does the next nearest cache.

 

I can appreciate the concerns raised and think it was right to question it if in doubt rather than keep quiet.

 

However, it looks like a sturdy wall which isn't likely to get disassembled in the hunt for the cache and as caching is not as popular in France as over here I don't think there is likely to be a huge increase in traffic to the area due to it's presence.

 

Fingers crossed there will be no need to archive it in future, it looks like a nice cache, I want to go find it!

[+third-degree-witch]

Im with Nebias on this one.

[+careygang]

Hi All

this seems to have moved from a moan about one particular cache 'in a wall' which may or may not be against the rules, etc, etc, to the more important subject of caches placed without permission, particularly on land of major land owners.

We don't want to get into the situation found in the USA, where the National Parks and other government owned land are off limits.

We should all report to the mods when we find one that breaks the rules, that way standards are maintained and our activity does not get dragged into a bad press.

Some time ago I had a FTF on a nearby cache, to find that it was a cardboard box, in a plastic carrier bag, hung in a tree. It looked like someone's discarded doggy poop! Needless to say I reported it and it was no more.

[+Son Of Windswept]

Hence the question to the Reviewer who I know speaks very good English.

 

Thank you I lived in the UK for many years, and, like the French Prime Minister (François Fillon), my wife is Welsh, which helps.

 

dadgum wish I had known this, I could have asked him to translate my caches for me :-)

 

Paul

Edited September 17, 2007 by Son Of Windswept

[+HATTSTER]

Exactly my thoughts - but (not wishing to stir it), did the Romans give permission?

 

And if they didn't give permission, what else have they ever done for us

Aqueducts, sanitation, roads, ...

Education...

 

 

Ice Cream ; Fish and Chips...

BLOODY GREY SQUIRELS TOO!!!..lol

[+HATTSTER]

Im pretty new to this and was thinking of placing my own cache soon ..but the more i read these great forums the more info i find out...where and who makes the rules...up until i joined this site i thought a wall was a great place to hide one,,but now i see your points that it could get damaged pretty quikly if too many people had a bad time finding it and ruined it looking!!

[Deceangi]

Im pretty new to this and was thinking of placing my own cache soon ..but the more i read these great forums the more info i find out...where and who makes the rules...up until i joined this site i thought a wall was a great place to hide one,,but now i see your points that it could get damaged pretty quikly if too many people had a bad time finding it and ruined it looking!!

 

The main Geocaching.com Guidelines can be seen Here

 

And the local UK ones used by the 3 UK Reviewers Here

 

A lot of it has come from experience of the geocaching community, built up over time since the first cache was placed, and from interaction with landowners when negotiating permission agreements. Major ones can be seen here in the GAGB's GLAD

[+McDeHack]

Exactly my thoughts - but (not wishing to stir it), did the Romans give permission?

 

And if they didn't give permission, what else have they ever done for us

From the 'Anglo Saxon Cronicle' The Laud Cronicle. Year 418. "In this year the Romans collected all the treasures which were in Britain and hid some in the earth so that no one afterwards could find them, and some they took with them into Gaul"

Thats what they did for us, and there is still plenty to be found.

Nothing to do with this thread but I thought I would make it a bit light hearted as it seems to begining to heat up a bit.

[+jerryo]

Exactly my thoughts - but (not wishing to stir it), did the Romans give permission?

 

And if they didn't give permission, what else have they ever done for us

From the 'Anglo Saxon Cronicle' The Laud Cronicle. Year 418. "In this year the Romans collected all the treasures which were in Britain and hid some in the earth so that no one afterwards could find them, and some they took with them into Gaul"

Thats what they did for us, and there is still plenty to be found.

Nothing to do with this thread but I thought I would make it a bit light hearted as it seems to begining to heat up a bit.

Er, the "what have the Romans done for us?" theme is from Monty Python It's not heated up

[+The HERB5]

It appears Johnny Foreigner can do what they like Only possible with a shovel

 

dadgum our picky Reviewers

[+jerryo]

It appears Johnny Foreigner can do what they like Only possible with a shovel

 

dadgum our picky Reviewers

And dadgum the censoring machine that's responsible for altering d.a.m.n to dadgum.

[+Trucker Lee]

I simply placed stones in front of the hole, but the hole is natural.

 

As long as the hole was natural, and not specifically made to hide the cache, I see no great problem with the hide, unless..................

The human traffic was disrupting the historic or aesthetic value of the site. If cachers are doing any damage at all to the wall in the search for this cache, it must go. No game is worth the willful destruction of a monument or our historical features. We learn from history, and hopefully learn enough to duplicate or avoid, as the need be, the lessons it teaches.

 

The problem with caches in dry stone walls is not the cache itself or the hole it may be placed in. The problem arises when someone goes to search for it and of course does not go immediately to the right place, they then start lifting stones and, if my experience is anything to go by, the stone never quite fits back in place. Multiply that by, say, ten wrong stones, and then by however many cachers come along and you have a lot of damage to the wall.

This goes back on the individual cacher that is seeking the cache, and perhaps the hider also. It should never be necessary to use a tool to remove the camouflage from a cache, and any cover removed or pushed aside should be replaced. The common motto we follow should be to leave an area better than we found it, and thus gain the respect of landowners and other outdoors persons.