How Rigorous

[+no_peeking]

How rigorous should or do you adhere to the "leave no trace" rule for placing a geocache?

 

I ask because I was reading some of the OYR thread and there seemed to be some pretty strong opinions about placing caches in obvious places or otherwise breaking the "leave no trace" rule.

 

I am new, only 75 under my belt, but have hidden three and would like to hide more and want to do some creative stuff, but don't know how far to push the envelope.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I wouldn't call "Leave no trace" a rule, but a general guideline. Use your judgment. A lot of times, people can get up in arms when there's really no basis to do so. I would say, "Leave the least amount of trace that the situation requires"

 

(doesn't sound as cool does it )

Edited February 27, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+nikcap]

I try to do as much as possible to leave no trace. I also try to hide caches in a way that will result in minimal impact. Unfortunately, I've seen some cache sites get completely ripped apart by seekers.

 

Off trail hiking isn't a bad thing if you consciencious of where you step and what you step on.

 

To make up for my horrible acts of tromping through the woods, I usually carry a plastic bag with me that I try to fill up with trash other people left behind.

 

Maybe is evens outs, maybe the scales tip in my favor.

[+whistler & co.]

The best way to leave no trace is to NEVER, EVER hide a cache in a stone wall! EVER!

[+briansnat]

LNT is impossible, so the goal is to leave as little trace as possible.

 

To reduce the impact on the area, I try to make most of my hides hard for a passerby to see, but relatively easy for a geocacher to find. The more difficult hides, I try to make sure they are hidden on a durable surface (e.g. boulders and rock outcrops).

 

Try not to place your caches on steep ground where erosion can occur. If you have to slide down a hillside on your butt to place it, so will all the searchers, so avoid steep hillsides, unless its a rocky area where searchers won't exacerbate erosion.

 

Though counterintuitive, placing a cache far off a trail can reduce impact because searchers will approach from different directions, giving the area time to recover. The few times I've seen a path form to a cache, it's invariably been very close to a trail or parking, where searchers tend to follow the same route to the cache and wear a path.

 

whistler & co.'s advice to avoid stone walls is solid.

 

Finally, check out your cache site after a dozen or so finds to see if there is any observable damage. If there is move, or remove your cache.

Edited February 27, 2008 by briansnat

[+whistler & co.]

Another thing that helps minimize damage to the area is to state where the cache is not. For example, one of ours states in red letters "The cache is not hidden on or in the stone wall." and another states "The cache is not on the woodpecker tree." Of course, this only works if people read the cache description...

[+briansnat]

Another thing that helps minimize damage to the area is to state where the cache is not. For example, one of ours states in red letters "The cache is not hidden on or in the stone wall." and another states "The cache is not on the woodpecker tree." Of course, this only works if people read the cache description...

 

I have used that method when there are spots that I don't want people searching for one reason or another.

[+Mountain_Man_Mike]

I agree with Brian and Whistler. I saw a rock wall picked to pieces, shame it was likely very old. However, Humpty Dumpty is a well placed cache that makes it fairly intuitive where the hide is.

 

I appreciate comments in the cache log telling me where not to search, like "no need to tear up the flora as it is not there".

 

Overall, try to consider impact when placing a cache - including the parking and bushwack.

[+no_peeking]

How about caches such the OYR (off your rocker) series? I've been reading about that and there seems to be some dissent on whether such a cache was ever a good idea.

 

How about, also, caches that require you to go, for example, into the public library and ask for "the box behind the desk"?

[+buttaskotch]

How about caches such the OYR (off your rocker) series? I've been reading about that and there seems to be some dissent on whether such a cache was ever a good idea.

 

How about, also, caches that require you to go, for example, into the public library and ask for "the box behind the desk"?

I did the King Tut series in Philly, the book in the library caches was really awesome.

OYR is as good or bad as a LPC, depending on if you are a numbers person or a wilderness person.

I don't care either way, For me its all about the adrenaline rush of finding something

[+no_peeking]

[i did the King Tut series in Philly, the book in the library caches was really awesome.

OYR is as good or bad as a LPC, depending on if you are a numbers person or a wilderness person.

I don't care either way, For me its all about the adrenaline rush of finding something

 

There's this really clandestine, sneaky side of me that gets the adrenaline rush from finding somethig where it really shouldn't be, and no one knows about it except us cachers.

 

I had a conversation with someone about putting a nano inside a supermarket; perhaps under the shelves where they keep the canned pears or something. No one would ever know it's there, except the people looking for it, and it's otherwise harmless.

[+The Leprechauns]

No one would ever know it's there....

Especially since it's highly unlikely that Geocaching.com would list it.