Preventing bad behavior by finders

[tmike2552]

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.

 

I think a general reminder at the top would be fine. Something like:

 

Note: This cache has been hidden according to Groundspeak standards and any standards also listed for the park/whatever where this cache was hidden. If you are unfamiliar with these rules, do not attempt to locate this cache!

[+Always & Forever 5]

I think a general reminder at the top would be fine. Something like:

 

Note: This cache has been hidden according to Groundspeak standards and any standards also listed for the park/whatever where this cache was hidden. If you are unfamiliar with these rules, do not attempt to locate this cache!

Which is completely unnecessary. Logging into GC and finding caches implies you have read and agree to the terms and conditions for hiding/finding caches. No disclaimer required.

[+thedeadpirate]

So, you're proposing we list all the places that the cache isn't, just to prevent some goober from damaging property?

 

That's not what I am saying at all and I'm pretty sure you realize that.

 

I think a general reminder at the top would be fine. Something like:

 

Note: This cache has been hidden according to Groundspeak standards and any standards also listed for the park/whatever where this cache was hidden. If you are unfamiliar with these rules, do not attempt to locate this cache!

 

I also think this is redundant and unnecessary. All cachers should already be able to assume your cache was hidden within the guidelines since it would not have been listed otherwise. (whether that is actually the case or not)

 

I don't advocate putting something in the listing unless you are aware of a specific problem your cache may cause. If you know of a number of issues that your cache may cause, then you may want to rethink the entire hide.

[+DanOCan]

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?

 

No, I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting if there is something nearby that you know could be a potential issue, acknowledge it up front and try to prevent problems. Listing a single place that a cache ISN"T located is not the same as telling you where it is. There still could be lots of potential hiding places besides the sprinklers for a cache to be, however they may not have the same potential to cause problems.

 

Besides, having people have to look for it is the whole point, is it not?

 

Depends. I don't get any satisfaction from seeing someone DNF my caches. My goal is to get people to the location and once they are there they should be able to find it. I hide the sort of caches I like to find, which means they don't involve a long drawn out hunt. I'm quite content to have people find my caches in under five minutes from arriving at ground zero. Other hiders are different and that's cool too.

 

I shouldn't have to worry that they will destroy something in the process. It should go without saying.

 

Yep, you sound like my proverbial guy at the intersection. "I shouldn't have to worry that the other car is going to stop. It should go without saying."

 

Don't get me wrong, I think you are right. You SHOULDN'T have to worry about being destroying the area around your cache, but that doesn't mean you DON'T have to.

 

I don't see the harm in taking a few minutes, evaluating your hide for potential problems and then addressing them if they seem likely. I've seen lots of hides with information such as "You can reach the cache from the path" or "You don't need to turn over any deadfall to make the find" or "If you find yourself bushwhacking more than 10m you are coming at the cache the wrong way." As a hider I appreciate the "heads up" and I don't see why an owner would object to this sort of advice if it keeps caching from getting a bad name.

[+DanOCan]

... 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?

 

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. If someone didn't know about caches in sprinkler heads they would likely just read the hint, say to themselves "Well, duh!" and then carry on searching in whatever their normal manner is.

 

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?

 

I would just say they are inexperienced. One doesn't need to find many caches to see that even "normal" hunting for a cache leads to some level of damage. If they can't conceive that someone would do such a thing then obviously they can't warn against it. However, if they become aware of it as an issue they certainly shouldn't object to putting something about it on the cache page, either in the description or the hint.

[+DanOCan]

I also think this is redundant and unnecessary. All cachers should already be able to assume your cache was hidden within the guidelines since it would not have been listed otherwise. (whether that is actually the case or not)

 

I don't advocate putting something in the listing unless you are aware of a specific problem your cache may cause. If you know of a number of issues that your cache may cause, then you may want to rethink the entire hide.

 

Agreed. There are already a number of general disclaimers regarding the hiding and seeking of caches. I'm with you, I think we, as cache owners, only need to be concerned with specific issues.

 

Here is an example:

 

We had a local cache which was a small LnL hidden inside a birdhouse. The hint said "Look in the hole." Sounds find, right? Except, the cache owner placed his birdhouse cache just two fenceposts away from a real birdhouse. When we went to find the cache we came across a bird's nest, complete with eggs that had been dumped on the ground when someone (likely a cacher given the location) opened the wrong bird house. That sort of problem should be fairly easy to anticipate and dealt with in advance with a more descriptive hint, piece of flagging or some other way. Heck, even a sticky label on the real bird house saying "Not in here" would have worked.

 

(The owner did eventually move the cache to a location where that sort of mistake is less likely after getting feedback from the local community.)

[+Mule Ears]

Cache page disclaimers: Ineffective and unnecessary. The same cachers who are likely to be ham-handed in their searches probably don't read the descriptions carefully.

 

DanOCan's birdhouse example is a good one. A more alert owner might have noticed the other birdhouse and thought, "Uh, what if somebody searches that? Not good." Still, very good that they repositioned the cache once the problem became known.

 

If there's a general principle to follow, it's this: The closer a cache is to something that might be damaged by a thorough search, the less cleverly hidden it should be. If you want to create a diabolical, frustrating hide, put it someplace where searchers can't do much harm.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Mule Ears

[+geomann1]

 

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?

 

That is an important point, In a relatively recent hide in stated to people should leave the sprinkler heads and landscaping alone and to not mess with the electrical and telecommunications equipment in the vicinity. I have taken this as standard operating procedures now, because I have seen the damage cachers can do, such as ripping out sprinkler heads and messing up the landscaping.

[+rdaines]

Like most forum discussions this topic goes no where fast. Maybe we need another button rather than "Needs Maintenance", how about "This cache is damaging the local environment and should be archived" button?

[+tozainamboku]

If there's a general principle to follow, it's this: The closer a cache is to something that might be damaged by a thorough search, the less cleverly hidden it should be. If you want to create a diabolical, frustrating hide, put it someplace where searchers can't do much harm.

I don't buy this. What makes it diabolical is that you have to recognize which is the cache and which is the real birdhouse. It may be still be reasonable for the hider to ask the finder to exercise caution in making this decision. Of course there needs to be a way to tell the cache from the real birdhouse. The birdhouse with a painted black dot is the cache. The one with the hole is the birdhouse. The birdhouse that is painted to look like the GC.com logo is the cache. The plain blue one is just a birdhouse.

[+TrailGators]

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?

That is an important point, In a relatively recent hide in stated to people should leave the sprinkler heads and landscaping alone and to not mess with the electrical and telecommunications equipment in the vicinity. I have taken this as standard operating procedures now, because I have seen the damage cachers can do, such as ripping out sprinkler heads and messing up the landscaping.

I agree. Are some are still arguing against trying to put a little more thought into how their cache might be hidden to minimize the impact on the local environment? Have we at least come to a consensus on that point?

[+sbell111]

What about all those cachers who don't know about caches hidden in sprinklers? Are they automatically irresponsible?

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. If someone didn't know about caches in sprinkler heads they would likely just read the hint, say to themselves "Well, duh!" and then carry on searching in whatever their normal manner is.

You missed the point of my post. I'll try to make it more clear.

 

What about all those cache hiders 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?

I would just say they are inexperienced. One doesn't need to find many caches to see that even "normal" hunting for a cache leads to some level of damage. If they can't conceive that someone would do such a thing then obviously they can't warn against it. However, if they become aware of it as an issue they certainly shouldn't object to putting something about it on the cache page, either in the description or the hint.

I wonder if the cachers in your area are more destructive than some. In my experience, most cachers do not tear up the area around a cache, even when searching for difficult to find caches or those that are missing.

 

When I look for a cache, I give the area a good once over without even touching anything. I consider where the cache could be hidden, and I check those places without doing damage. As far as I can tell based on my 'limited' experience, most cachers hunt in a similar fashion. I guess that I'm just too inexperienced...

[CoyoteRed]

I don't buy this. What makes it diabolical is that you have to recognize which is the cache and which is the real birdhouse. It may be still be reasonable for the hider to ask the finder to exercise caution in making this decision. Of course there needs to be a way to tell the cache from the real birdhouse. The birdhouse with a painted black dot is the cache. The one with the hole is the birdhouse. The birdhouse that is painted to look like the GC.com logo is the cache. The plain blue one is just a birdhouse.

 

Two things:

 

One, being diabolical means it takes an effort to distinguish the two. This precludes the labels and different colors. For many, the object is to stump the geocacher, not just the general muggledom. Add to this the ability for the seeker to simply check between two choices and given it's pretty much a 50/50 chance, of those who go that route about half will choose poorly.

 

Choosing poorly shouldn't be a problem in and of itself. The seeker makes a mistake and moves on. No problem. However, if an easily taken, but poor choice is an option and it can result in damage--whether it be a negative view in the land stewards eye or the killing of flora and fauna--then it is the responsibility of the cache owner to correct it. Heck, it's probably the responsibility of the caching community to tactfully bring such a situation to the attention of the cache owner in case something was overlooked.

 

Of the bird house caches I've found, none were "diabolical." None had to be examined so closely that there would be danger to a real bird house, yet were real enough to not draw a muggle's eye.

[+UncleJimbo]

Maybe we need another button rather than "Needs Maintenance", how about "This cache is damaging the local environment and should be archived" button?

 

That is a good idea. Come to think of it, why don't cache pages have a "report this cache to reviewer" button?

[+Isonzo Karst]

why don't cache pages have a "report this cache to reviewer"

 

They do, it's a Needs Archived log. Or an email to the reviewer who issued the "published" log (assuming the cache owner hasn't deleted it).

[+DanOCan]

You missed the point of my post. I'll try to make it more clear.

 

What about all those cache hiders who don't know about caches hidden in sprinklers? Are they automatically irresponsible?

 

Hehe...yeah, I figured out what you were getting at a couple hours after making that post. I'm a little slow sometimes.

 

To answer the question, I don't think they are irresponsible. If you don't know, you don't know. However, if they start seeing logs like "Opened the sprinkler head" or see evidence of bad behavior and choose to do nothing then they are being irresponsible, IMO.

 

I wonder if the cachers in your area are more destructive than some. In my experience, most cachers do not tear up the area around a cache, even when searching for difficult to find caches or those that are missing.

 

When I look for a cache, I give the area a good once over without even touching anything. I consider where the cache could be hidden, and I check those places without doing damage. As far as I can tell based on my 'limited' experience, most cachers hunt in a similar fashion. I guess that I'm just too inexperienced...

 

Could very well be. I have learned in Geocaching there are often major regional differences in many aspects of the hobby. Around here it is not uncommon to see a lot of dead fall and other natural camouflage that has been disturbed by people looking for an elusive cache.

Edited October 4, 2007 by DanOCan

[+tozainamboku]

Are some are still arguing against trying to put a little more thought into how their cache might be hidden to minimize the impact on the local environment? Have we at least come to a consensus on that point?

Not when you word it that way. I can tell you how to hide caches to minimize impact on the local environment - don't hide any caches. The point I keep trying to make is that some cacher seekers don't take proper care when searching for a cache. They'll trample through landscaping, tear up plants, and disassemble infrastructure. And this is when the hider did not hide the cache in the landscape, where there is a way to get to the cache without bushwhacking, and where there is no need to disassemble anything. Perhaps some cachers do this because the have found caches in the past that required one to do these things. Perhaps some cachers do this because they think it's the normal way to search for the cache. Perhaps some cachers do this because they just won't accept a DNF until they've searched everywhere.

 

Happily, most cachers search responsibly. They are careful to put things back that they moved while searching for the cache. They don't bushwhack unnecessarily. If they take something apart they put it back together. The question that should be ask is not how to minimize the impact of your cache but what can be done to minimize the impact of irresponsible cachers. If these cacher were to read the cache page I agree that one could put on the page instructions to stay on trails, not to search in the landscape, or not to disassemble infrastructure and hope they follow the instructions. A good hint might direct the search to the right area and if the cache is not found may help in getting the cacher to know to accept a DNF for this cache instead of continuing to search where damage may occur. I agree that one should follow the guidelines and not place caches in areas that would be sensitive to extra traffic and searching. I agree that one should follow local regulations. I agree that if you see damage occurring you should move or archive your cache. I don't agree with blaming micros, diabolical hides, or even bad coordinates for causing damage. On a case by case basis one may decide that these are inappropriate in a certain area. But then an ammo can may be inappropriate in certain areas as well.

[+sbell111]

You missed the point of my post. I'll try to make it more clear.

 

What about all those cache hiders who don't know about caches hidden in sprinklers? Are they automatically irresponsible?

Hehe...yeah, I figured out what you were getting at a couple hours after making that post. I'm a little slow sometimes.

 

To answer the question, I don't think they are irresponsible. If you don't know, you don't know. However, if they start seeing logs like "Opened the sprinkler head" or see evidence of bad behavior and choose to do nothing then they are being irresponsible, IMO.

We are in agreement.

 

Any maintenance issues caused by cache seekers should be responded to by the cache owner promptly.

I wonder if the cachers in your area are more destructive than some. In my experience, most cachers do not tear up the area around a cache, even when searching for difficult to find caches or those that are missing.

 

When I look for a cache, I give the area a good once over without even touching anything. I consider where the cache could be hidden, and I check those places without doing damage. As far as I can tell based on my 'limited' experience, most cachers hunt in a similar fashion. I guess that I'm just too inexperienced...

Could very well be. I have learned in Geocaching there are often major regional differences in many aspects of the hobby. Around here it is not uncommon to see a lot of dead fall and other natural camouflage that has been disturbed by people looking for an elusive cache.

Is that a problem?

 

I'm reminded of an old thread where someone was lamenting the fact that a fallen tree broke down faster than expected due, in his opinion, to geocachers. I still am not sure why I should care how long it takes for a fallen tree to break down.

Edited October 4, 2007 by sbell111

[tmike2552]

We had a local cache which was a small LnL hidden inside a birdhouse. The hint said "Look in the hole." Sounds find, right? Except, the cache owner placed his birdhouse cache just two fenceposts away from a real birdhouse. When we went to find the cache we came across a bird's nest, complete with eggs that had been dumped on the ground when someone (likely a cacher given the location) opened the wrong bird house. That sort of problem should be fairly easy to anticipate and dealt with in advance with a more descriptive hint, piece of flagging or some other way. Heck, even a sticky label on the real bird house saying "Not in here" would have worked.

This brings up another point:

 

Maybe a non-geocacher put up a birdhouse next to a cache that was disguised as a birdhouse, trying to create a "community" of birds. If the owner was unaware that this had happened it would not be in the description.

[+thedeadpirate]

This brings up another point:

 

Maybe a non-geocacher put up a birdhouse next to a cache that was disguised as a birdhouse, trying to create a "community" of birds. If the owner was unaware that this had happened it would not be in the description.

 

You can only deal with problems you are aware of.

Edited October 4, 2007 by GeoBain

[+Renegade Knight]

...Here is an example:

 

We had a local cache which was a small LnL hidden inside a birdhouse. The hint said "Look in the hole." Sounds find, right? Except, the cache owner placed his birdhouse cache just two fenceposts away from a real birdhouse. When we went to find the cache we came across a bird's nest, complete with eggs that had been dumped on the ground when someone (likely a cacher given the location) opened the wrong bird house. That sort of problem should be fairly easy to anticipate and dealt with in advance with a more descriptive hint, piece of flagging or some other way. Heck, even a sticky label on the real bird house saying "Not in here" would have worked.

 

(The owner did eventually move the cache to a location where that sort of mistake is less likely after getting feedback from the local community.)

 

That's a good example. The cache itself should not have been placed. The sticker/stencil "not in here" would also have worked well (but that takes more face time with the other birdhouse owner).

[+Renegade Knight]

....The point I keep trying to make is that some cacher seekers don't take proper care when searching for a cache....

 

That is a univeral problem. Name the activity. Passing laws in congreess, hiking, using ATV's...There are a few who just never take care to keep activities viable for us all.

[+DanOCan]

Could very well be. I have learned in Geocaching there are often major regional differences in many aspects of the hobby. Around here it is not uncommon to see a lot of dead fall and other natural camouflage that has been disturbed by people looking for an elusive cache.

Is that a problem?

 

Yes, some cases worse than others. Here is a good example.

 

The cache owner anticipates one problem and deals with it up front in the cache description: "Now before the Geopolice send me an Email about this being on Private Property, It is, and I have permission from the owner."

 

Cache was hidden in October, I found it in late December and didn't note any problems with the site. There were a number of potential hiding places including a fence, picnic tables, trash bins, trees, etc. (In the end it was a bison tube inside an electrical box.)

 

However, a few short weeks later we see this:

 

"When I hid this cache I asked for permission from the owner of the property and assured him that no one woudl damage the property while searching for it. I told him that it would be hidden in such a way that no one would have to dig up anything, or move anything to find it.

 

And to that end I hid the cache fully believing that the cachers in this city would enjoy the puzzle and be respectful of the property involved.

 

Well it if nice to know I have been let down on a scale even I could not imagine.. All three containers have been damaged, the fence, and a tree. And this one people can not blame on Muggles."

 

----------

 

I think this Note that another cache posted later said it best:

 

"Cachers are no different from other people, some good, some less good, some like XRN95. You just aren't jaded enough ... it'll come."

 

------------

 

I don't blame the cache owner in this case. He was a relatively new cacher (in terms of length of time cached anyway) and likely wasn't aware of the sort of things cachers will do when searching.

 

He told the owner that it would be "hidden in such a way that no one would have to dig up anything, or move anything to find it.". I wonder if the cache page had a similar message or if the hint had been more specific if there would have been the same level of damage done.

 

(For the record, I didn't go back to the site to see the damage for myself and I don't know exactly what was done so I can't comment on it specifically.)

[+sbell111]

Could very well be. I have learned in Geocaching there are often major regional differences in many aspects of the hobby. Around here it is not uncommon to see a lot of dead fall and other natural camouflage that has been disturbed by people looking for an elusive cache.

Is that a problem?

Yes, some cases worse than others. Here is a good example.

 

The cache owner anticipates one problem and deals with it up front in the cache description: "Now before the Geopolice send me an Email about this being on Private Property, It is, and I have permission from the owner."

 

Cache was hidden in October, I found it in late December and didn't note any problems with the site. There were a number of potential hiding places including a fence, picnic tables, trash bins, trees, etc. (In the end it was a bison tube inside an electrical box.)

 

However, a few short weeks later we see this:

 

"When I hid this cache I asked for permission from the owner of the property and assured him that no one woudl damage the property while searching for it. I told him that it would be hidden in such a way that no one would have to dig up anything, or move anything to find it.

 

And to that end I hid the cache fully believing that the cachers in this city would enjoy the puzzle and be respectful of the property involved.

 

Well it if nice to know I have been let down on a scale even I could not imagine.. All three containers have been damaged, the fence, and a tree. And this one people can not blame on Muggles."

 

----------

 

I think this Note that another cache posted later said it best:

 

"Cachers are no different from other people, some good, some less good, some like XRN95. You just aren't jaded enough ... it'll come."

 

------------

 

I don't blame the cache owner in this case. He was a relatively new cacher (in terms of length of time cached anyway) and likely wasn't aware of the sort of things cachers will do when searching.

 

He told the owner that it would be "hidden in such a way that no one would have to dig up anything, or move anything to find it.". I wonder if the cache page had a similar message or if the hint had been more specific if there would have been the same level of damage done.

 

(For the record, I didn't go back to the site to see the damage for myself and I don't know exactly what was done so I can't comment on it specifically.)

I fail to see what your post has to do with my question about dead fall, but that's OK.

 

BTW, having read the linked cache page and taken a look at the map, I'm not sure how you can guarantee that any damage was done by geocachers. After all, the cache went missing. It would appear that a muggle wandered off with it. If a muggle found it, what is to make us believe that muggles didn't damage other nearby items at this small baseball field/park?

Edited October 4, 2007 by sbell111

[+wimseyguy]

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've seen it posted on the cache page more than once-"the coords are off by 10-20' to make it harder for you to find" After thanking the owner for hiding a cache, I generally point out the foolishness of that attitude.

 

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.

 

I have had more than one land manager tell me they do not like to post keep out signs because it attracts people to an area they want to keep off limits. I don't get that at all.

 

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.

True, and normally the case. Neither of the two spots that come to mind have off trail prohibitions posted at trail heads IIRC.

 

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.

EXACTLY, and one of the two cited locations that had no geocaching policy before they discovered there were caches in their woods, now has a NO Geocaching Policy, instead of a permission when and where we say so policy.

 

But at the end of the day, I am the only one who is responsible for my actions and deeds. Not you, not the cache hider, not even the person who warned me not to do something foolish or stupid.

[+sbell111]

... one of the two cited locations that had no geocaching policy before they discovered there were caches in their woods, now has a NO Geocaching Policy, instead of a permission when and where we say so policy.

I'm willing to bet that every location that now has a geocaching policy didn't have such a policy before they found out about geocaching.

[+DanOCan]

I fail to see what your post has to do with my question about dead fall, but that's OK.

 

Yeah, I have a bad habit of going off-topic. We started talking about dead fall specifically but I jumped up to general damage caused by cachers. Anyway, here are excepts from a Maintenance Log an owner posted on a difficulty 5 micro in our area:

 

----------

"I saw the huge amount of damage that has been done to the trees, both standing and fallen, but decided against archiving this cache as the only obvious deterioration has been incurred by already-dead stuff. Please, let's keep it that way.

 

To be more specific, the trees that have been "attacked" were already dead (amazingly, some were still standing, though my 6-year old could have easily pushed them over), and the crumbled bark was already dry and brittle. Sure some of the ground cover was stepped on, but show me a woodland cache where that is not the case.

----------

 

I don't know if our region is worse than others or if this is common. I also don't know if it is caused by the fact that being an urban area we have a lot of cachers hitting caches in a short period of time. Regardless, it is clear we have a lot of rambunctious cache seekers.

 

BTW, having read the linked cache page and taken a look at the map, I'm not sure how you can guarantee that any damage was done by geocachers. After all, the cache went missing. It would appear that a muggle wandered off with it. If a muggle found it, what is to make us believe that muggles didn't damage other nearby items at this small baseball field/park?

 

I don't know, I only have the cache owner's comments to go by. It's best for me to stay away from Drive Ins and fast food joints in general.

Edited October 4, 2007 by DanOCan

[+Renegade Knight]

... one of the two cited locations that had no geocaching policy before they discovered there were caches in their woods, now has a NO Geocaching Policy, instead of a permission when and where we say so policy.

I'm willing to bet that every location that now has a geocaching policy didn't have such a policy before they found out about geocaching.

I'll double down on some of them still don't have a policy or even care to bother.

[+trainlove]

Even if the coords are not bad, there are still dumb cachers. Mostly newer ones but some long timers also sadly.

Listing everywhere a cache IS NOT will not have any effect on cachers who download 500 coords and don't even go paperless, i.e. no Palm and no paper and not having looked at any of those cache pages ahead of time. But in most cases like that the cachers are veterans and will not trample flower gardens.

 

I have heard of caching environmental police who will report a bad cache placement to the local reviewer who will force the cache owner to put it somewhere else or archive it.

[+thedeadpirate]

Listing everywhere a cache IS NOT will not have any effect on cachers who download 500 coords ...

 

I don't know where that came from and why it continues to perpetuate. No one (I will reread the entire thread to be sure) has ever said a hider should list everywhere a cache IS NOT.

 

That is something someone made up and quoted me as if I had said that.

 

I also said

 

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.

 

and I stand by that.

[+TrailGators]

Are some are still arguing against trying to put a little more thought into how their cache might be hidden to minimize the impact on the local environment? Have we at least come to a consensus on that point?

Not when you word it that way. I can tell you how to hide caches to minimize impact on the local environment - don't hide any caches.

I said "minimize" and I did not say "eliminate." It is definitely possible to hide caches in a manner that will "minimize" damage. We all know that the accuracy of a GPS basically gets most people within a 30 foot circle. So make sure that your 30 foot circle doesn't overlap a sensitive area. If your bad coords center that circle in the middle of a sensitive area then your cache will cause the careless cachers out there to cause damage. It's actually pretty simple.

 

The point I keep trying to make is that some cacher seekers don't take proper care when searching for a cache. They'll trample through landscaping, tear up plants, and disassemble infrastructure. And this is when the hider did not hide the cache in the landscape, where there is a way to get to the cache without bushwhacking, and where there is no need to disassemble anything.

We all know that there are careless cachers out there. Do you want me to agree with that? I agree. Edited October 5, 2007 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

Are some are still arguing against trying to put a little more thought into how their cache might be hidden to minimize the impact on the local environment? Have we at least come to a consensus on that point?

Not when you word it that way. I can tell you how to hide caches to minimize impact on the local environment - don't hide any caches.

I said "minimize" and I did not say "eliminate." It is definitely possible to hide caches in a manner that will "minimize" damage. We all know that the accuracy of a GPS basically gets most people within a 30 foot circle. So make sure that your 30 foot circle doesn't overlap a sensitive area. If your bad coords center that circle in the middle of a sensitive area then your cache will cause the careless cachers out there to cause damage. It's actually pretty simple.

I guess I was just being a mathematician. Assuming that the minimum amount of impact you could have is zero, then eliminating the cache would result in zero impact. I guess you could look at good impact as well such as CITO. If you gave good impact a negative value, you might minimize impact by asking people to cleanup trash they find in the area The only problem here is that most people think negative impact is bad

[+TrailGators]

Are some are still arguing against trying to put a little more thought into how their cache might be hidden to minimize the impact on the local environment? Have we at least come to a consensus on that point?

Not when you word it that way. I can tell you how to hide caches to minimize impact on the local environment - don't hide any caches.

I said "minimize" and I did not say "eliminate." It is definitely possible to hide caches in a manner that will "minimize" damage. We all know that the accuracy of a GPS basically gets most people within a 30 foot circle. So make sure that your 30 foot circle doesn't overlap a sensitive area. If your bad coords center that circle in the middle of a sensitive area then your cache will cause the careless cachers out there to cause damage. It's actually pretty simple.

I guess I was just being a mathematician. Assuming that the minimum amount of impact you could have is zero, then eliminating the cache would result in zero impact.

C'mon Mr. T, that's a ridiculous statement and you know it.

[+trainlove]

Listing everywhere a cache IS NOT will not have any effect on cachers who download 500 coords ...

 

I don't know where that came from and why it continues to perpetuate. No one (I will reread the entire thread to be sure) has ever said a hider should list everywhere a cache IS NOT.

 

That is something someone made up and quoted me as if I had said that.

 

I also said

 

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.

 

and I stand by that.

 

I did not say that you said that.

I did not quote anyone.

I stated a statement.

 

Here goes, oh, and there was a typo in my statement before.

 

I know of a cacher that has 5000 caches (that was the typo 5000 not 500) on his GPS.

I know for a fact that he has read very few of the cache pages for those caches, if any at all.

I know for a fact that he has a couple thousand finds and is still amazed by the badly placed caches of newbies.

I know for a fact that he does not have a Palm or Pocket PC or even a phone to call for outside help, this is possibly irresponsible.

I know for a fact, that he will not trample someones garden or trespass.

I know for a fact that he actually has very few DNF's when he's searching for all those caches.

I know his GPS stores GPX files directly and can import the coords from them directly but I don't think it can show the cache page writeup, this is the only think I do not know for a fact.

ACtually that last statement is possibly untrue. I'm not sure if his 5000 caches are Traditional only, so if he has Puzzle or Multi caches stored on the GPS then he probably read THOSE cache pages and accordingly filled in the hint or added comments on his GPS in addition to the coords.

 

I myself have occasionally downloaded 450+ caches into my GPS and using GSAK have chosen the smart name, and for the comment had a 1 digit difficulty, 1 digit terrain, 1 digit cache type, 1 digit cache size and cache owners name. I have gone on a planned trip and actually ended up some 40 miles from where I was going to go but still made many finds of many caches I had never read about until I posted my log.

 

Don't misinterpret me and I won't misinterpret you, OK!

[+Renegade Knight]

...C'mon Mr. T, that's a ridiculous statement and you know it.

That's why there are Engineers.

 

Remember this joke?

 

In the high school gym, all the girls in the class were lined up against one wall, and all the boys against the opposite wall. Then, every ten seconds, they walked toward each other until they were half the previous distance apart. A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were asked, "When will the girls and boys meet?"

The mathematician said: "Never."

The physicist said: "In an infinite amount of time."

The engineer said: "Well... in about two minutes, they'll be close enough for all practical purposes."

[+TrailGators]

...C'mon Mr. T, that's a ridiculous statement and you know it.

That's why there are Engineers.

 

Remember this joke?

 

In the high school gym, all the girls in the class were lined up against one wall, and all the boys against the opposite wall. Then, every ten seconds, they walked toward each other until they were half the previous distance apart. A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were asked, "When will the girls and boys meet?"

The mathematician said: "Never."

The physicist said: "In an infinite amount of time."

The engineer said: "Well... in about two minutes, they'll be close enough for all practical purposes."