Preventing bad behavior by finders

[+tozainamboku]

I decided to spin off this as a separate target from whether or not one should list intentionally bad coordinates.

 

Please consider the impact bad coordinates will have on the immediate environment. People are more likely to be a bit destructive when a cache can't be found.

Blaming bad coordinates as an excuse for slash and burn searching techniques is irresponsible. If you can't find a cache, log a DNF or come back another day. Don't rip out ever tree and then blame the hider for making it too hard to find.

I think you missed the point. NYCacher was saying to keep in mind what seekers will do when looking for your cache. That doesn't excuse their behavior, but it is the reality we cache owners have to keep in mind.

I agree because I see the "reality" all the time. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies here. Caches in which the owner purposely provides bad coordinates go on my ignore list. I'm also apt to ignore the rest of their caches as well.

Some feel that if you put intentionally bad coordinates you are somehow responsible for causing the people who look for your cache to trample flowers, tear up landscaping, and disassemble every sprinkler head and not put them back as they found them. I believe that such action is the responsibility of the seeker and not the hider. Would I be at fault if the cache had been muggled and that was the reason it wasn't found? Would I be at fault if it was a particularly difficult hide and the seeker was just having a bad day? Would I be at fault if the coordinate error was unintentional? Instead of posting a thread that implies it's OK to destroy property when looking for a cache because the hider did a bad job of getting coordinates, we should be telling people that is never OK to destroy property. If your not sure about going into the landscaping or disassembling a sprinkler you shouldn't do it.

 

I suspect that some people are just tired of bad coordinates, whether intentional or not, and pick this as a excuse to argue against bad coordinates. It may be true that some lazy inconsiderate geocachers will damage property looking for a cache if they don't find it instantly. Personally, I don't think these people make good geocachers. On the other hand, I've sometimes enjoyed the challenge of finding caches hidden by people who have the reputation for having bad coordinates. I don't think they are intentionally posting bad coordinates. Maybe they are just careless about how they get their coordinates. The challenge is to look some distance away and try to think about where you would hide a cache. Of course I prefer if there is some kind of hint I can check to see if I am on the right track. Then at least I know when to quit and log a DNF.

[+TrailGators]

I decided to spin off this as a separate target from whether or not one should list intentionally bad coordinates.

 

Please consider the impact bad coordinates will have on the immediate environment. People are more likely to be a bit destructive when a cache can't be found.

Blaming bad coordinates as an excuse for slash and burn searching techniques is irresponsible. If you can't find a cache, log a DNF or come back another day. Don't rip out ever tree and then blame the hider for making it too hard to find.

I think you missed the point. NYCacher was saying to keep in mind what seekers will do when looking for your cache. That doesn't excuse their behavior, but it is the reality we cache owners have to keep in mind.

I agree because I see the "reality" all the time. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies here. Caches in which the owner purposely provides bad coordinates go on my ignore list. I'm also apt to ignore the rest of their caches as well.

Some feel that if you put intentionally bad coordinates you are somehow responsible for causing the people who look for your cache to trample flowers, tear up landscaping, and disassemble every sprinkler head and not put them back as they found them. I believe that such action is the responsibility of the seeker and not the hider. Would I be at fault if the cache had been muggled and that was the reason it wasn't found? Would I be at fault if it was a particularly difficult hide and the seeker was just having a bad day? Would I be at fault if the coordinate error was unintentional? Instead of posting a thread that implies it's OK to destroy property when looking for a cache because the hider did a bad job of getting coordinates, we should be telling people that is never OK to destroy property. If your not sure about going into the landscaping or disassembling a sprinkler you shouldn't do it.

 

I suspect that some people are just tired of bad coordinates, whether intentional or not, and pick this as a excuse to argue against bad coordinates. It may be true that some lazy inconsiderate geocachers will damage property looking for a cache if they don't find it instantly. Personally, I don't think these people make good geocachers. On the other hand, I've sometimes enjoyed the challenge of finding caches hidden by people who have the reputation for having bad coordinates. I don't think they are intentionally posting bad coordinates. Maybe they are just careless about how they get their coordinates. The challenge is to look some distance away and try to think about where you would hide a cache. Of course I prefer if there is some kind of hint I can check to see if I am on the right track. Then at least I know when to quit and log a DNF.

Maybe I should hide a cache near your house and put the bad coordinates in the middle of your prize winning flower garden. After all it's not my fault at all if it gets trampled.

 

P.S. I just want to point out that I would never do that because I always try to be considerate.

Edited October 2, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Rattlebars]

Publishing intentional bad coordinates is a STUPID IDEA regardless of your responsibility or not what the seekers do. If you are not creative enough to make a well camouflaged hide and must rely on bad coordinates to ...... well, the point seems lost already.

 

Would I be at fault if the cache had been muggled and that was the reason it wasn't found? Would I be at fault if it was a particularly difficult hide and the seeker was just having a bad day? Would I be at fault if the coordinate error was unintentional?

 

Of course not. What silly questions those are.

 

I do believe this is not worthy of a separate thread, though here I am posting in it!

[+BlueDeuce]

... :stepping back

Edited October 2, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+The Jester]

Acting stupid isn't limited to destructive searching, a few years back a cacher ripped one cache around here because it had waypoints on both sides of a busy, multi lane road. He thought to have to crawl over the divider too dangerous - even though the page told everyone to use the crosswalk, with light, just down the block. So, NO, the hider isn't responsible for seeker bad behavior.

[+The Jester]

I decided to spin off this as a separate target from whether or not one should list intentionally bad coordinates.

 

Please consider the impact bad coordinates will have on the immediate environment. People are more likely to be a bit destructive when a cache can't be found.

Blaming bad coordinates as an excuse for slash and burn searching techniques is irresponsible. If you can't find a cache, log a DNF or come back another day. Don't rip out ever tree and then blame the hider for making it too hard to find.

I think you missed the point. NYCacher was saying to keep in mind what seekers will do when looking for your cache. That doesn't excuse their behavior, but it is the reality we cache owners have to keep in mind.

I agree because I see the "reality" all the time. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies here. Caches in which the owner purposely provides bad coordinates go on my ignore list. I'm also apt to ignore the rest of their caches as well.

Some feel that if you put intentionally bad coordinates you are somehow responsible for causing the people who look for your cache to trample flowers, tear up landscaping, and disassemble every sprinkler head and not put them back as they found them. I believe that such action is the responsibility of the seeker and not the hider. Would I be at fault if the cache had been muggled and that was the reason it wasn't found? Would I be at fault if it was a particularly difficult hide and the seeker was just having a bad day? Would I be at fault if the coordinate error was unintentional? Instead of posting a thread that implies it's OK to destroy property when looking for a cache because the hider did a bad job of getting coordinates, we should be telling people that is never OK to destroy property. If your not sure about going into the landscaping or disassembling a sprinkler you shouldn't do it.

 

I suspect that some people are just tired of bad coordinates, whether intentional or not, and pick this as a excuse to argue against bad coordinates. It may be true that some lazy inconsiderate geocachers will damage property looking for a cache if they don't find it instantly. Personally, I don't think these people make good geocachers. On the other hand, I've sometimes enjoyed the challenge of finding caches hidden by people who have the reputation for having bad coordinates. I don't think they are intentionally posting bad coordinates. Maybe they are just careless about how they get their coordinates. The challenge is to look some distance away and try to think about where you would hide a cache. Of course I prefer if there is some kind of hint I can check to see if I am on the right track. Then at least I know when to quit and log a DNF.

Maybe I should hide a cache near your house and put the bad coordinates in the middle of your prize winning flower garden. After all it's not my fault at all if it gets trampled.

 

P.S. I just want to point out that I would never do that because I always try to be considerate.

Oh, with good co-ords there's no trampling, but with bad co-ords trampling is the norm. Hmmm, but how do you know the co-ords are bad until you find the cache, so how do you know whether to trample or not? Or do you go back to the GZ of bad co-ords (after finding the cache) and then trample?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Oh, with good co-ords there's no trampling, but with bad co-ords trampling is the norm. Hmmm, but how do you know the co-ords are bad until you find the cache, so how do you know whether to trample or not? Or do you go back to the GZ of bad co-ords (after finding the cache) and then trample?

 

I just trample first, ask questions later!

 

Seriously, I can think of no legitimate or acceptable reason to intentionally post bad coords.

[+rdaines]

If you place a cache near sensitive objects, sprinkler heads, electrical boxes, etc why not add a sentence in the cache description that says that the cache is NOT hidden in these objects? While the hider is not responsible for the finder's behavior, he/she placed the cache there and is ultimately responsible. The seekers would not be there otherwise.

[CoyoteRed]

Personally, I think the OP's question should be answered with a definite "depends."

 

There are myriads of scenarios that are completely out of the cache owner's control. The seeker himself may have fat-fingered the coords. He may have screwed up on solving a puzzle. He may have it on the wrong datum. The list goes on and on.

 

There are things that are sort of within the control of the cache owner. A seeker trespasses on clearly posted land while seeking access--or any ill-advised route when there are available alternatives. The cache owner could have created the hunt differently to reduce the likelihood of trespass or simply not placed the cache. However, this doesn't make the cache owner responsible for the seeker getting arrested for trespass or run over while jaywalking.

 

One way to look at cache owner responsibility is how the owner is responsible to the land steward. You, as a cache owner, did draw someone to the stewards land and, in essence, is a guest of a guest. Kind of, osrt of, like if you're invited to a party and you bring a friend. The host will be looking to you when your friend starts destroying the lamp for something to place on his head, puking in the punch bowl, and generally being completely obnoxious. You can't simply toss up your hands and exclaim, "don't look at me!"

 

Also, while I think a goodly portion of the geocaching community are a conscientious lot, there is a large enough group who are not to it not be a surprise when they strike. Folks are constantly dealing with poor trading habits, not replacing the cache, signing in during the pouring rain and not sheltering the cache, etc. so not taking care of where they put their feet should not come as a surprise.

 

So, IMHO, if you place an evil hide in the middle of a pristine flower garden you are responsible for your invitees, and to the land steward for their actions. If you place it on the other side of the garden from obvious parking and the flowers get trampled, then yes, you have the right for a little bit of righteous indignation. Outright condemnation if you provide a clearcut path to the cache and the seeker has to go out of their way to trample.

 

I simply think that using artificial and easily circumvented barriers, like a flower garden around an evil hide, is irresponsible--even if the cache is not really there and the coords only point to it. Additionally, listing a cache as traditional and posting offset coords is wrong. Trying to increase the difficulty by posting "loose" coords is cheesy and makes for ignore-button fodder.

 

Furthermore, part of the reason buried caches are generally not allowed here--besides blanket land owner issues--is the area of a cache needs to be left for the next person as if no one has ever been there. That's kind of hard with holes dug all over the place. The same holds true for social trails and trampled areas. It's the responsibility of both parties that the next person has a decent experience. It's hard to fathom thinking anyone would want to see a trampled flower garden.

 

The solution is for the owner to reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence. If you want to place an evil hide then look for an area with more durable surfaces. Think about how often the cache will be hunted, how long the seeker will be on site, and how quickly the area can recover. Can the area recover quickly enough for the next person? What kind of damage will the seekers likely create? Would the damage be permanent?

 

So, in conclusion, "is the owner responsible?" Depends on whether the cache owner himself has been irresponsible with his choices.

[+Isonzo Karst]

you're invited to a party and you bring a friend. The host will be looking to you when your friend starts destroying the lamp for something to place on his head, puking in the punch bowl, and generally being completely obnoxious. You can't simply toss up your hands and exclaim, "don't look at me!"

 

Excellent post, CR. When you place a cache, you're inviting cachers to the spot. In your placement you must act as a responsible seneschal of the land. If the cache area is being damaged, even if you feel that that cache could be found without all that damage ("hey, don't look at me, he's the one puking in the punch bowl") archive it, or edit the description to alleviate the problems. From the land owner/manager's perspective, it's the cache causing the problem. They aren't going to distinguish between "good cachers" and "bad cachers".

 

That there are bad cachers is part of the equation that the cache owner needs to consider.

[+sbell111]

Each of is responsible for our own behavior. Period.

 

Bad behavior by cache seekers becomes a maintenance issue for the cache owner, but the cache owner is not responsible for the behavior of the seekers.

 

I do not believe that we need to post notes on our cache pages which advise seekers to not damage anything. Those that will do damage will almost certainly ignore the advice and the rest of us don't need a reminder to act appropriately.

[+StarBrand]

Of course the hider bears at a minimum some the responsibility of what happens near the cache location.

 

For example, hiding too small a container in a heavily forested area with little or no hint as to where to look encourages seekers to climb the trees (possible tearing bark or breaking branches), pull aside bushes(breakage possible), trample down wide areas of grass, move rocks, etc....

 

or....

 

Hiding a cache on a wlkway through the city botanical garden area in a city park with coordinates that zero out 20 foot into the flower beds. No hints and no mention that it isn't in the flowers. On this example - there appeared to be a stone walkway through the area and some tall grasses on one side. Container size was marked as unknown. I skipped it - but others had done quite a bit of damage. It was months later before the owner added a note about the size of container and any mention of the surrounding flowers.

 

The hider cannot control what the seekers do but they can suggest and steer them in the right direction to protect the setting. It is a responsibility in some situations.

[+Mule Ears]

CR has it right. This thread and others like it are remarkable in that the motto "Individual Responsibility" gets used to avoid individual responsibility. The hider is responsible for designing his hide to anticipate possible problems that might be caused by predictably clumsy, misguided or even irresponsible seekers. You can't prevent all bad behavior, but you can reduce the likelyhood or impact of it.

 

Hides in the vicinity of sensitive areas that might be damaged by a search (e.g., nice landscaping, flower beds) are poor form. Seekers who search things like flower beds and sprinkler heads are not necessarily acting irrationally or recklessly--I've found caches hidden in those very places. Nowadays, I rarely search for urban caches, but when I do and the coords lead to a nice garden, I shut off the GPS and return to the car.

[+Rockin Roddy]

A cache in the woods with less than accurate coords might be fine and wouldn't cause any more damage than mother nature herself (ice damage to the trees in the winter, animals eating the bark, brush getting trampled by animals etc). I'd not worry about those, BUT...I have seen what a less than careful cacher can do even there.

 

A cache placed in urban settings with coords that lead one to a flower bed or such SHOULD be worded to let others know not to enter the flowers etc. It really isn't hard (and certainly doesn't take away from the cache page) to let others know where NOT to look!

 

We searched for a cache recently which had the clue "you shouldn't be able to reach the wall". Not much help really as the coords led us right to a flower bed of a church, and you'd HAVE to get into the bed to reach the wall. We have yet to find it, but did find one of theirs down the road and won't be going back after this one (now understanding the "hiding MO" of this cacher...the other was in a piling on the end of a bridge...drilled a hole to place the hide)

[+Mudfrog]

Very good post CR!

 

I think that nails it pretty good. There's no doubt that there are some out there who would use a bulldozer if they could to try and locate a cache. For the majority of us though, this just isn't the case. Even so, cache finders do go out with the intention of finding that cache and they will usually try pretty hard to get it. Although i feel that most try their best not to cause any damage, they still probably end up doing so while trying to find some of those more difficult caches hidden in inapproriate locations. Cachers will step into a flower bed, peel back foliage, take apart a sprinkler head, etc,,, if thats where their GPSr arrow points. I do believe most cachers try not to be destructive but theres no doubt that when looking for some caches, that it's easy to tell that they have been there.

 

We all need to be repsonsible when caching but there are times when i feel that the responsibility falls more on the hider. Hiders need to make sure that they have picked out a good place for their cache. The hider should use common sense for this, and while i certainly don't want them holding my hand, they still need to think about what can go wrong. For instance, while some areas can support a needle in a haystack type find just fine, placing a camoed bison tube in a thick bush next to someone's prize flower garden is probably asking for problems.

[Trinity's Crew]

Bad coordinates will nearly always cause an area to be searched more heavily. The larger search perimeter will cause more leaves to be disturbed, more vegetation to be trampled, more saplings broken, more hidey holes investigated, more rocks searched under, etc...

 

I agree that as a seekers we are responsible for our own actions, but a prolonged search that is precipitated by intentionally listing bad coordinates is going to cause more wear and tear in the general area regardless of how careful we are.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Can someone tell me how you'd figure out when INTENTIONAL bad coords have been used? Would there be some sort of clue to this in the description?

 

I know...smart ..... question. But really, coords can be bad for MANY reasons including purposely given. I'm going to go into the search with the ASSUMPTION that the coords are off (normal accuracy +/- issues) and do my search as I always do...start looking about 30' from ground zero and work my way in. If that doesn't work, I will expand my search even further than 30'. If I still can't find it, I won't be tearing bark from trees, ripping brush from the ground etc...I'll DNF and ask the owner for a clue.

 

Now, if I've found a few caches from the same person whose coords are consistanly off, I'll search accordingly...but still not trashing the area.

[+tozainamboku]

The hider cannot control what the seekers do but they can suggest and steer them in the right direction to protect the setting. It is a responsibility in some situations.

I certainly see no reason not to give a reasonable hint or write in clear text on the page "there is no need to go in the flower beds" but there are some people who claim that it is more fun/challenging to simply put the coords in their GPS and cache blind. So how to stop these people from damaging something while looking for a cache?

 

For me, I assume the hider followed the guidelines when placing the cache and there is no need to dig, trample flowers, or destroy property to find the cache. So I don't do this. I don't think other cachers should do it either and sure as heck am not going to alter my hides to account for some irresponsible goon. I'm not really advocating bad coords. I'm just a bit ticked that some people are advocating that all caches must be easy to find so that the idiots can find them before they have a chance to do damage. Even that may not be enough because the cache may be missing and someone won't log a DNF before clear cutting the forest. If you really want to prevent people from causing damage you should stop hiding caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Some feel that ...you are ...responsible for ...the people who look for your cache to trample flowers, tear up landscaping, and disassemble every sprinkler head and not put them back as they found them. I believe that such action is the responsibility of the seeker and not the hider....

 

We are all responsible for our own actions.

 

The thing is things are inter-related. While I am not responsible for a finders stupidity in seeking my cache I have learned that I can skew the odds the direction that I like by keeping their actions in mind. If I'm going to have a brutally hard cache, I can place it in a location that the only harm someone can do would be if they brough a bulldozer with them. I can also make a cache in a sensative area easy for a cacher to find so they don't have to spend much time looking after getting there.

 

In both cases I am not responsible for the finders doing their worst, but I do have the ability to mitigate their actions. Don't think of it as my assuming the responsibility so much as an ouce of prevention.

 

In other words, I do have the power to influence, and I chose to use it. Finders can still be morons, but at least they have to work harder at it.

 

Edit: CR Very well said.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+thedeadpirate]

I have to agree with CR on this one. You don't need to admonish cachers on every cache listing not to destroy property. Everyone should know not to destroy property.

 

But when you are aware of something in your hide that could lead to cachers damaging property, I think it is prudent to mention it in the listing.

 

I have a cache that is located within 15 feet of a sign made of old brick with loose mortar joints. I noticed how easy it would be for someone to mistake that wall as the hiding spot and made note of it in the listing. It just seemed like a good thing to do.

 

I have another one that requires you to park on the side of a seldom used road and cross it. There is no warning anywhere on that listing about looking both ways before crossing the road. Some things are just common sense.

 

So, yes, it is a definite depends.

[+TrailGators]

I have to agree with CR on this one. You don't need to admonish cachers on every cache listing not to destroy property. Everyone should know not to destroy property.

 

But when you are aware of something in your hide that could lead to cachers damaging property, I think it is prudent to mention it in the listing.

 

I have a cache that is located within 15 feet of a sign made of old brick with loose mortar joints. I noticed how easy it would be for someone to mistake that wall as the hiding spot and made note of it in the listing. It just seemed like a good thing to do.

 

I have another one that requires you to park on the side of a seldom used road and cross it. There is no warning anywhere on that listing about looking both ways before crossing the road. Some things are just common sense.

 

So, yes, it is a definite depends.

I do the same thing with my caches because I want to try to reduce the adverse impact as much as possible.

[+whistler & co.]

We really appreciate when we go to a cache site and are told where NOT to look, especially when a cache is placed in the vicinity of an old stone wall where even the most careful poking and shifting of stones can cause a lot of destruction. We have hidden a cemetery cache where we state in the description in all capital letters that the cache is not in or on the stone wall, and another hide where people are explicitely warned against accessing the cache from the adjacent private property and instructed to enter through the cemetery grounds. Both of these caches have had a DNF or two because of the way they are hidden, so obviously posting the caveats does not unduly impact the search in a negative way.

 

Problems still arise, however, when people do not bother to read the cache description and search in a place or manner specifically warned against by the cache owner. But "to read or not to read" is another question entirely.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Another consideration, often overlooked, is how your cache will affect caching trails in relation to existing caches. I see some really poor placements in this regard. It IS a gray area as far as the cache owner's responsibility. But I know of a local land manager that is aware of the caching tendency to cut across loops and will deny a cache that's across the loop from another.

 

We encountered a parking lot cache in North Carolina. By the time I was home to log it, it had been archived. He had permission for it, but cachers were cutting from one parking lot to another, damaging the mulch on the hillside. Given the relative placements of the two caches, and the divided roadway that made entry to one lot easy and the other difficult, this was a predictable user trail.

[+TrailGators]

Another consideration, often overlooked, is how your cache will affect caching trails in relation to existing caches. I see some really poor placements in this regard. It IS a gray area as far as the cache owner's responsibility. But I know of a local land manager that is aware of the caching tendency to cut across loops and will deny a cache that's across the loop from another.

 

We encountered a parking lot cache in North Carolina. By the time I was home to log it, it had been archived. He had permission for it, but cachers were cutting from one parking lot to another, damaging the mulch on the hillside. Given the relative placements of the two caches, and the divided roadway that made entry to one lot easy and the other difficult, this was a predictable user trail.

We had this happen in one of our parks. There was a cache that you could get within 100 feet of but it involved a bushwhack through thick "sensitive habitat." The proper approach (on the cache page) was to hike another 0.15 mile down the trail and take a parallel finger trail back up to that cache. I'm sure you can guess what happened before I write it. Some people started bushwhacking through the habitat. A few months later caching was banned in that park. It still is banned. Now we can all sit here and say it was the fault of the bushwhackers but this never would have happened if the cache hadn't been put there in the first place. That's what I meant earlier about an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This is also why many parks out here now have an approval process. They want to know exactly where each cache will be placed and they want the coordinates to verify that they are correct. This gives the rangers a chance to review the potential impact on the environment before they approve the cache. All cache placers should take the role that the rangers are taking and really think about the impact of their cache placements on the environment and verify that the coordinates are correct. I don't think this is too much to ask.

[+tozainamboku]

Now we can all sit here and say it was the fault of the bushwhackers but this never would have happened if the cache hadn't been put there in the first place.

I have to ask if the park had signs that said "sensitive area keep out". If it did and cachers still went through the sensitive area then I do blame the bushwhackers. Granted I can think of a few caches where I bushwhacked recently because I pick the wrong trail to go to the cache. And these were in parks that discourage off trail use. At least I was careful to pick a route that would not cause any long term damage following animal paths as much as possible. I have a cache in another park where the creek is home to an endangered frog. The signs there warn of a $500 fine for leaving the trail in the areas near the creek. I sure hope that no one tries to cut off a few tenths of a mile by going off trail to find my cache. I guess the recommendation of many who have posted here is that I should archive my cache before someone does this. Maybe I should stick to hiding caches in light poles in the middle of a paved parking lot and not be the one responsible for getting caches banned in the park

[+TrailGators]

Now we can all sit here and say it was the fault of the bushwhackers but this never would have happened if the cache hadn't been put there in the first place.

I have to ask if the park had signs that said "sensitive area keep out". If it did and cachers still went through the sensitive area then I do blame the bushwhackers. Granted I can think of a few caches where I bushwhacked recently because I pick the wrong trail to go to the cache. And these were in parks that discourage off trail use. At least I was careful to pick a route that would not cause any long term damage following animal paths as much as possible. I have a cache in another park where the creek is home to an endangered frog. The signs there warn of a $500 fine for leaving the trail in the areas near the creek. I sure hope that no one tries to cut off a few tenths of a mile by going off trail to find my cache. I guess the recommendation of many who have posted here is that I should archive my cache before someone does this. Maybe I should stick to hiding caches in light poles in the middle of a paved parking lot and not be the one responsible for getting caches banned in the park

One thing you forget is that most of these parks had no idea that people would be bushwhacking for no apparent reason (to them) so there are not signs every 500 feet. Signs are ugly. Park rules are typically posted online and at the trailheads. Anyhow, I think you missed my point, that we should all be sensitive to the impact our caches make on the environments that they are placed in. I can't evaluate your cache without seeing it. So only time will tell if it has had an adverse impact on the local environment or not. I can't make you care either. So it is up you to decide. Edited October 2, 2007 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

Being that my cache is what brought the bad actors there, I think it is part of my responsibility for what goes on.

 

For this reason I do things like avoiding sensitive areas, hiding my cache on durable surfaces where possible, creating a multi if I want to direct searchers a certain way (or away from an area) and providing a "no doubt about it, here it is" hint.

 

I place my caches knowing that some searchers might be careless, some might be clueless and some might just be clumsy.

[+thedeadpirate]

I don't see people recommending all hiders archive caches that have potential for doing harm to the environment.

 

Rather, if there is a known potential that you are aware of, why not make mention of it. If you know the park has a firm policy because of an endangered frog, why not alert cachers that might not know that ahead of time. If the cacher then ignores the warning or doesn't read the listing, then it is the cacher's fault, not yours.

 

I would just sleep better if I gave all pertinent information on the cache listing for something like that.

 

If there are signs throughout the park clearly alerting cachers, then I don't know that I would be as concerned.

 

There are two parts to the title of this thread.

 

The first part is "preventing bad behavior by finders". If you know there is something you could do to prevent that behavior, then you should probably try to head it off at the pass.

 

The second part asks if you are responsible for their bad behavior. To that I say everyone is responsible for their own action. I, as a finder, cannot honestly blame you if I decide to start ripping apart sprinkler heads looking for a cache. I cannot hold you responsible if I electrocute myself because I acted like an idiot and decided to start taking apart an electrical panel. I can't blame you if I tear down a century old rock fence because I don't have enough sense to be careful and consciouncious when looking for a cache.

 

However, I have to ask myself if I can sleep comfortably at night knowing that someone died because I decided to put a cache close to live electrical wiring or close to a rock wall and it was torn down or if a business's sprinkler system was destroyed because I hid a cache close to sprinkler heads and knew it was possible some idiot would mistake the sprinklers for the cache.

 

I guess for me it comes down to what I can do to mitigate damages that could be caused from my hide. I am the one personally responsible to the land owner that gave me permission to place my cache.

 

We all have a responsibility to do our own part to keep this hobby/sport healthy and thriving. That's one reason we do so much education at our local meet n greets. We want to ensure that newcomers and old hands alike are aware of proper caching etiquette and local land owner policies.

 

At the end of the day, though, you can't regulate stupid.

Edited October 2, 2007 by GeoBain

[+geomann1]

At the end of the day, though, you can't regulate stupid.

 

Agreed, you can't regulate stupidity, and I also agree that one can foresee potential problems and avoid them.

 

Its like giving a drunk whiskey and car keys and then claiming it wasn't your fault he killed someone driving drunk. Some cache locations will just lead to problems.

Edited October 3, 2007 by geomann1

[+Sapience Trek]

Regardless of bad coordinates, the only opinion that matters is that of the land manager, whether that be a park ranger or garden club or private property owner.

 

We all have seen cases of areas getting trashed when a hide is particularly devious or difficult. It's going to happen - bad coordinates or not. It will continue to happen.

 

With that in mind, put yourself in the shoes of the land manager. You see a flower bed, or other "sensitive" area disturbed, rocks turned over, logs strewn all over. Do you really care whether it was the hider or the finder of the cache who was responsible for the damage? Probably not. You just want geocaching banned from your lands.

 

As a cache hider, you may not be directly responsible for any damages to the area caused by other people, however you need to take into consideration what kind of damage an area can sustain while people are looking for your cache. Reviewers don't always know exactly how or where a cache is hidden, so a finder can't assume that a hide isn't in the middle of the garden or inside the blue bird house or ....

Edited October 3, 2007 by NYCacher

[+tozainamboku]

As a cache hider, you may not be directly responsible for any damages to the area caused by other people, however you need to take into consideration what kind of damage an area can sustain while people are looking for your cache. Reviewers don't always know exactly how or where a cache is hidden, so a finder can't assume that a hide isn't in the middle of the garden or inside the blue bird house or ....

My argument is that as a cache finder you should be as much aware of the guidelines as the cache placer. If a cache was placed so it can't be retrieved without causing damage to property or the cache was placed in an area that would be sensitive to the increased traffic then the cache is in violation of the guidelines. If you get to a location and suspect this is the case then you should try to contact the owner of the cache to see if this is so. And ultimately, you as the finder should post as SBA log if the owner doesn't give a satisfactory answer. This game relies on finders to be responsible as well as hiders.

 

If I as a responsible hider have followed the guideline, I'm simply asking what I have to do to tell cachers. Do I need the following disclaimer on all my caches "I followed the guidelines. My cache isn't buried. It can be retrieved without destroying property. It can be accessed without going through off-limits or sensitive areas."?

 

I agree that it is a good idea if there is a sensitive area nearby to mention this in the cache page. And a useful hint may also reduce the impact of a cacher by focusing their search. But I also see that some people want to hunt caches with just the coordinates in the GPS and without reading the cache page. If I have to worry about the impact of these people I would be pretty limited to where I could place a cache.

[+TrailGators]

I agree that it is a good idea if there is a sensitive area nearby to mention this in the cache page. And a useful hint may also reduce the impact of a cacher by focusing their search. But I also see that some people want to hunt caches with just the coordinates in the GPS and without reading the cache page. If I have to worry about the impact of these people I would be pretty limited to where I could place a cache.

This is where we do not agree. The rangers out here have come up with some general park guidelines that allow plenty of places to hide caches while at the same time minimizing impact on the environment. For example, many parks require that the cache be hidden X feet of the main trail. I could go on but I'm sure that you see my point.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If a cache was placed so it can't be retrieved without causing damage to property or the cache was placed in an area that would be sensitive to the increased traffic then the cache is in violation of the guidelines. If you get to a location and suspect this is the case then you should try to contact the owner of the cache to see if this is so. And ultimately, you as the finder should post as SBA log if the owner doesn't give a satisfactory answer. This game relies on finders to be responsible as well as hiders. ...

 

You are saying that finders are responsible for owners?

 

I have found that for every finder who is moronic in a destrutive way, there is another equil and opposite finder who's moronic in the "gee this can cause harm, did they ask the land manager, I'm not sure the military markings were covered to the right degree, the contents are hot, the paper might burn, I'm having a panic attack just thinking about this, better hit the SBA log and let a higher authority figure it out and make me feel better" way.

[+Mule Ears]

My argument is that as a cache finder you should be as much aware of the guidelines as the cache placer. If a cache was placed so it can't be retrieved without causing damage to property or the cache was placed in an area that would be sensitive to the increased traffic then the cache is in violation of the guidelines. If you get to a location and suspect this is the case then you should try to contact the owner of the cache to see if this is so. And ultimately, you as the finder should post as SBA log if the owner doesn't give a satisfactory answer. This game relies on finders to be responsible as well as hiders.

 

If I as a responsible hider have followed the guideline, I'm simply asking what I have to do to tell cachers. Do I need the following disclaimer on all my caches "I followed the guidelines. My cache isn't buried. It can be retrieved without destroying property. It can be accessed without going through off-limits or sensitive areas."?

 

I agree that it is a good idea if there is a sensitive area nearby to mention this in the cache page. And a useful hint may also reduce the impact of a cacher by focusing their search. But I also see that some people want to hunt caches with just the coordinates in the GPS and without reading the cache page. If I have to worry about the impact of these people I would be pretty limited to where I could place a cache.

 

Seems like you're overthinking this. Just add a couple items to your mental checklist when you hide a cache: "What damage might a bozo cause if they searched this area carelessly or without reference to the cache page? Given the damage a reckless or frustrated cacher might do, is this really the best spot for a hard-to-find cache?" Furthermore, it's not a bad idea to monitor the first logs that roll in for signs of some unanticipated problem. Be ready to move or yank the cache if it causes trouble.

 

It'd be nice if everyone behaved themselves. But they don't. I, for one, don't park next to a rust-scabbed beater thinking, "He'll do the right thing and avoid dinging my door."

[+Renegade Knight]

I agree that it is a good idea if there is a sensitive area nearby to mention this in the cache page. And a useful hint may also reduce the impact of a cacher by focusing their search. But I also see that some people want to hunt caches with just the coordinates in the GPS and without reading the cache page. If I have to worry about the impact of these people I would be pretty limited to where I could place a cache.

This is where we do not agree. The rangers out here have come up with some general park guidelines that allow plenty of places to hide caches while at the same time minimizing impact on the environment. For example, many parks require that the cache be hidden X feet of the main trail. I could go on but I'm sure that you see my point.

 

People have a tendancy to reduntancy. The park has rules everone is expected to follow. A park that creates a cache guideline, tends to rehash all those rules in the cache rules. More than a few people in the forums want all the rules and regs, re-published on the cache page. If everone got thier way there would be a four lists of the same rules. On the park sign, in the park policy manual, on the cache policy, on the cache page. Change one rule...now which is right. It's enough that the cache merely mentions anything specific to the cache. "Please don't lick the cache, I used lead based paint on it." for example.

[+Always & Forever 5]

It'd be nice if everyone behaved themselves. But they don't. I, for one, don't park next to a rust-scabbed beater thinking, "He'll do the right thing and avoid dinging my door."

 

I don't either. But if I did, it sure wouldn't be my fault.

 

I'm responsible for hiding caches in accordance with the GC guidelines. Nothing more, nothing less. Not that I don't think things out, but as long as it's hidden correctly, the responsibility from that point on lies with the finder.

[+tozainamboku]

I agree that it is a good idea if there is a sensitive area nearby to mention this in the cache page. And a useful hint may also reduce the impact of a cacher by focusing their search. But I also see that some people want to hunt caches with just the coordinates in the GPS and without reading the cache page. If I have to worry about the impact of these people I would be pretty limited to where I could place a cache.

This is where we do not agree. The rangers out here have come up with some general park guidelines that allow plenty of places to hide caches while at the same time minimizing impact on the environment. For example, many parks require that the cache be hidden X feet of the main trail. I could go on but I'm sure that you see my point.

I do miss your point. If a park has a policy on where you can place a cache or asks that you work with the ranger to find a place for your cache that is appropriate and consistent with the park's land use policies then you should follow the park policy. From the guidelines:

In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations. If your area does not have a local caching organization please contact your local reviewer for information on regulations. If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page or in a ‘note to the reviewer’. A reviewer may request that you provide contact information for the person who gave you permission to hide your cache.

My point is that I have followed the guidelines and some idiot who had trouble finding my cache (because the batteries in his GPS were weak or he chose to not read the cache page or decrypt the hint or the caches was missing) decides to turn over every rock, break branches in every bush, or disassemble the sprinkler system. Now what? You want to blame me for getting caching banned in the park? What was I supposed to do? Stand at the cache site 24/7 so when a cacher comes by I can show him exactly where the cache is so there is no impact at all? There is no excuse for finders destroying the cache location. If a hider didn't follow the guideline the finder should log a DNF or an SBA.

[+Cache Heads]

I certainly see no reason not to give a reasonable hint or write in clear text on the page "there is no need to go in the flower beds" but there are some people who claim that it is more fun/challenging to simply put the coords in their GPS and cache blind. So how to stop these people from damaging something while looking for a cache?

I think it comes down to what kind of person the seeker is, in general-- not just in Geocaching. Personally, I have searched for caches without reading the description or hint for one reason or another. That doesn't mean I'm going to do anything I'd be uncomfortable doing in any other setting. Trampling flowers, ripping out sprinkler heads and not putting them back, trespassing, bushwacking through sensitive areas, etc... are not things I would do, whether Geocaching or not. So, I'd assume someone who is willing to do those things will do so regardless of whether or not they are told it's necessary.

[+TrailGators]

I agree that it is a good idea if there is a sensitive area nearby to mention this in the cache page. And a useful hint may also reduce the impact of a cacher by focusing their search. But I also see that some people want to hunt caches with just the coordinates in the GPS and without reading the cache page. If I have to worry about the impact of these people I would be pretty limited to where I could place a cache.

This is where we do not agree. The rangers out here have come up with some general park guidelines that allow plenty of places to hide caches while at the same time minimizing impact on the environment. For example, many parks require that the cache be hidden X feet of the main trail. I could go on but I'm sure that you see my point.

I do miss your point. If a park has a policy on where you can place a cache or asks that you work with the ranger to find a place for your cache that is appropriate and consistent with the park's land use policies then you should follow the park policy. From the guidelines:

In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations. If your area does not have a local caching organization please contact your local reviewer for information on regulations. If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page or in a 'note to the reviewer'. A reviewer may request that you provide contact information for the person who gave you permission to hide your cache.

My point is that I have followed the guidelines and some idiot who had trouble finding my cache (because the batteries in his GPS were weak or he chose to not read the cache page or decrypt the hint or the caches was missing) decides to turn over every rock, break branches in every bush, or disassemble the sprinkler system. Now what? You want to blame me for getting caching banned in the park? What was I supposed to do? Stand at the cache site 24/7 so when a cacher comes by I can show him exactly where the cache is so there is no impact at all? There is no excuse for finders destroying the cache location. If a hider didn't follow the guideline the finder should log a DNF or an SBA.

I never said that you can make your cache completely idiotproof, but you can use some general hiding techniques (parks have some good ones you can emulate) that will move it in that direction when hiding caches in areas that may not have any cache hiding guidelines. Edited October 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Mule Ears]

The crux of the discussion seems to be 'when searchers cause damage, who gets the blame?' The answer is simple: In every meaningful way, the cache owner is stuck with the blame. It may not be fair, but it's the owner whose cache will get archived, and if there's a fuss (e.g., parkwide ban) the owner will be remembered as the cause.

 

There may be occasional exceptions, such as a reckless searcher caught in the act, or an owner with such an excellent reputation for thoughtful cache placements that he's immune to criticism. But nine times out of ten, your cache, your fault.

 

Did I mention this isn't fair?

[+Sapience Trek]

The crux of the discussion seems to be 'when searchers cause damage, who gets the blame?' The answer is simple: In every meaningful way, the cache owner is stuck with the blame. It may not be fair, but it's the owner whose cache will get archived, and if there's a fuss (e.g., parkwide ban) the owner will be remembered as the cause.

 

There may be occasional exceptions, such as a reckless searcher caught in the act, or an owner with such an excellent reputation for thoughtful cache placements that he's immune to criticism. But nine times out of ten, your cache, your fault.

 

Did I mention this isn't fair?

 

We ALL get stuck with the blame. When damage gets caused, it really doesn't matter who did it. Geocachers did it. End of story. End of caching in that area.

[+DanOCan]

We ALL get stuck with the blame. When damage gets caused, it really doesn't matter who did it. Geocachers did it. End of story. End of caching in that area.

 

Amen.

 

Whether or not a cache owner is responsible for the actions of the seekers, I don't see any reason to NOT take their actions into account.

 

Let's say I hide a micro in a park and the coordinates take you to a spot near a tree and some sprinkler heads. As the owner, why wouldn't I place something in the cache description or the hint that says "Not in the sprinklers" to prevent potential damage from seekers?

 

Cache owners who fail to take into account the behavior of seekers remind me of someone approaching an intersection in a car who has the right-of-way but sees a speeding car approaching. They say "Well, I have the right-of-way so it's his fault if he runs the Stop sign." Regardless of fault the net result is the same.

[+Mule Ears]

We ALL get stuck with the blame. When damage gets caused, it really doesn't matter who did it. Geocachers did it. End of story. End of caching in that area.

 

Absolutely. That's why it's essential to anticipate problems to the degree possible and design hides to reduce their likelyhood. My point was simply that saying 'Hey, not my fault searchers ripped up the flowerbed near my cache' isn't going to fly. It's still a ding against the hider's reputation.

[+TrailGators]

We ALL get stuck with the blame. When damage gets caused, it really doesn't matter who did it. Geocachers did it. End of story. End of caching in that area.

 

Absolutely. That's why it's essential to anticipate problems to the degree possible and design hides to reduce their likelyhood. My point was simply that saying 'Hey, not my fault searchers ripped up the flowerbed near my cache' isn't going to fly. It's still a ding against the hider's reputation.

I think most of us are in agreement.

[+sbell111]

... Let's say I hide a micro in a park and the coordinates take you to a spot near a tree and some sprinkler heads. As the owner, why wouldn't I place something in the cache description or the hint that says "Not in the sprinklers" to prevent potential damage from seekers? ...

What about all those cachers who don't know about caches hidden in sprinklers? Are they automatically irresponsible? What about those cachers who truly would not imagine that cachers would tear up flowers looking for a cache? Should they warn against something that is a total implausibility, in their opinion?

[+tozainamboku]

We ALL get stuck with the blame. When damage gets caused, it really doesn't matter who did it. Geocachers did it. End of story. End of caching in that area.

 

Absolutely. That's why it's essential to anticipate problems to the degree possible and design hides to reduce their likelyhood. My point was simply that saying 'Hey, not my fault searchers ripped up the flowerbed near my cache' isn't going to fly. It's still a ding against the hider's reputation.

I think most of us are in agreement.

Well I was about to agree but that would be too easy . I guess I started this thread because in the other thread about intentionally bad coordinates someone suggested that posting bad coordinates could cause someone to damage the environment while looking for a cache. I responded there that bad coordinates are not the reason why a cacher behaves irresponsibly and causes damage. That may have been seen by some as implying that you shouldn't do what you can to lessen the impact of your cache on the environment. My point is that badly behaved geocachers will behave badly no matter what you do. And in the case of bad coordinates, whether or not this is more likely depends.

 

Assume that you have good coordinates and your cache is relatively easy to find. You may have every cacher approach from the same direction and go directly to the cache. While this may minimize the impact of an individual cacher, it may result in the formation of a geotrail to the cache. Say you have bad coordinates and there are several place nearby that may be good hiding places. Now as each cacher approaches ground zero they head off in different directions, they wander about checking different spots until they find the cache. Each cacher has trampled over more area but since they are taking different paths there is less chance of forming a geotrail. Given what has been said in this thread it looks like there are situations where the hider should purposely put in bad coordinates to prevent damage to the cache area.

[+thedeadpirate]

My point is that I have followed the guidelines and some idiot who had trouble finding my cache (because the batteries in his GPS were weak or he chose to not read the cache page or decrypt the hint or the caches was missing) decides to turn over every rock, break branches in every bush, or disassemble the sprinkler system. Now what? You want to blame me for getting caching banned in the park?

 

No.

 

If you wanted to be a jerk and list a cache but never even put the cache out and you posted coordinates squarely in the middle of someones nice flower garden in the middle of a private cemetary with the easiest access being through someone's posted private property, that still does not excuse a finder from trespassing, disrupting a grieving family because they happened to be visiting their loved one when the cacher showed up, or destroying the flower garden in search of the cache.

 

Finders are responsible for their actions, period. We should follow all posted rules, be aware of GC guidelines, and generally have respect for our fellow man.

 

My point is if there is something you are aware of when you hide the cache that a finder may not be aware of or that you could reasonably assume could cause a problem, you should probably mention something in the listing.

 

There is absolutely NO excuse for not reading the cache description. People can talk until they are blue in the face about paperless caching. Done properly, paperless caching gives you all the information you would have from printouts of the listing. If you have only coordinates loaded, then you should be prepared to DNF from time to time. That does not excuse you from using common sense and following local rules and GC guidelines when hunting a cache.

[+thedeadpirate]

Whether or not a cache owner is responsible for the actions of the seekers, I don't see any reason to NOT take their actions into account.

 

Let's say I hide a micro in a park and the coordinates take you to a spot near a tree and some sprinkler heads. As the owner, why wouldn't I place something in the cache description or the hint that says "Not in the sprinklers" to prevent potential damage from seekers?

 

Cache owners who fail to take into account the behavior of seekers remind me of someone approaching an intersection in a car who has the right-of-way but sees a speeding car approaching. They say "Well, I have the right-of-way so it's his fault if he runs the Stop sign." Regardless of fault the net result is the same.

 

That's what I was getting at. If you know ahead of time of something that could cause potential problems, why not try to head it off at the pass?

[+thedeadpirate]

... Let's say I hide a micro in a park and the coordinates take you to a spot near a tree and some sprinkler heads. As the owner, why wouldn't I place something in the cache description or the hint that says "Not in the sprinklers" to prevent potential damage from seekers? ...

What about all those cachers who don't know about caches hidden in sprinklers? Are they automatically irresponsible? What about those cachers who truly would not imagine that cachers would tear up flowers looking for a cache? Should they warn against something that is a total implausibility, in their opinion?

 

That's why I said if you are aware of something that could be a potential problem, why not mention it? Finders are responsible for their own behavior. But as mule ears said, it doesn't really matter who's fault it is. It's still a ding against geocaching.

 

If you can do something to prevent bad behavior, why not do it?

[+Always & Forever 5]

... Let's say I hide a micro in a park and the coordinates take you to a spot near a tree and some sprinkler heads. As the owner, why wouldn't I place something in the cache description or the hint that says "Not in the sprinklers" to prevent potential damage from seekers? ...

What about all those cachers who don't know about caches hidden in sprinklers? Are they automatically irresponsible? What about those cachers who truly would not imagine that cachers would tear up flowers looking for a cache? Should they warn against something that is a total implausibility, in their opinion?

 

That's why I said if you are aware of something that could be a potential problem, why not mention it? Finders are responsible for their own behavior. But as mule ears said, it doesn't really matter who's fault it is. It's still a ding against geocaching.

 

If you can do something to prevent bad behavior, why not do it?

 

So, you're proposing we list all the places that the cache isn't, just to prevent some goober from damaging property? Why not just list exactly where it is, instead? Wouldn't that be a much shorter list?

 

Besides, having people have to look for it is the whole point, is it not? I shouldn't have to worry that they will destroy something in the process. It should go without saying.