Geocaches responsible for getting us BANNED

[+briansnat]

You guys are in a strange place – more impacts than day hikers, but much less than off roaders.

 

I'm not sure where you get that. As an avid hiker and geocacher I can assure you that hikers have far more of an impact on an area than geocachers. For one, they are out there in far, far greater numbers. I've seen numerous areas nearly devoid of vegetation, with heavy erosion and compacted soil, all caused by hikers. In nearly 800 cache hunts I've yet to encounter that around a geocache in the wild.

 

I see your point when the resources are plant/animal. When it comes to archaeological sites and TCPs, it is the act of moving things around (rocks, structural elements etc) that get ya'll in trouble when those items are part of a protected resource. Yes hikers do that too - using rocks as tent stakes, making fire rings etc. But it is the ubiquity with which it is done that is the issue. As someone pointed out in an earlier post, all it takes is one bad apple. And I noted that the posts in other forums all caution not to mess up things. But in the western US, all it would take is one person mucking up a shrine to get everyone riled up and on the "ban" bandwagon. Sure, off roaders do more damage, as do timber trucks, yahoos with too much alcohol and ammo and not enough sense ( I have been shot at). But with the pervasive "good old boy" mentality at a lot of agencies (off roading is manly did you know?) you can see why pedestrian activites get the short end of the stick.

 

As for 50 year old cans being considered important - age is only one determining criterion. But that is a good example of an instance where something does not look "important" when it very well could be. I guess that is my point all along - a random wall, a rock cairn, an overhang could look like nothing - when it is in fact sacred to someone, or archaeologically/historically significant and thus, "important".

 

Archaeological sites can be a problem because the average person doesn't know where they are and archaeologists don't want to publicize them for fear of pot hunters looting the sites. In most instances however these sites are not going to be damaged by someone moving a few sticks or stones to hunt a cache.

 

Where a cache is on an identified archaeological site it should be removed promptly, but problem caches are so rare that there is no reason they can't be addressed on an individual basis once they are identified.

 

As far as what constitutes an archaeological site, that is debatable. On a continent that has been inhabited 15,000+ years it could be argued that nearly everywhere is an archaeological site, but some designations make me wonder. I do volunteer trail work and along one trail are some abandoned, rusting automobiles. We spoke to the state about getting help with their removal and were told they are an archaeological site and protected. Yeah, I know that archeology is essentially the study of other people's garbage, but is the body of a '62 Buick in the woods really an archaeological site? Give me a break.

[+ventura_kids]

 

but is the body of a '62 Buick in the woods really an archaeological site? Give me a break.

 

I think the Eagle scouts have a project to place a brass plaque on a pedestal there...describing the historical significance of the car.

[vagabond]

 

but is the body of a '62 Buick in the woods really an archaeological site? Give me a break.

 

I think the Eagle scouts have a project to place a brass plaque on a pedestal there...describing the historical significance of the car.

 

Bet the plaque doesn't last long before it's stolen

Edited May 10, 2008 by vagabond

[Bidwell]

This is why I decided to Terracache. First of all it allows virtual caches which GC no longer allows, and it’s self policing, i.e. if it’s a poor cache, it can be voted into archival. Also, I can’t speak for other areas but in the north east, Terracaching is a smaller and more mature group.

 

In my area, the general impression is that cachers are a bunch of yahoos with no respect for their environment be it urban or rural. I have witnessed this first hand observing damage leading to and around caches, blatant trespassing, cache descriptions that lead you though posted land, illegal caches on private and posted land, caches in prohibited areas and so on. Cachers are giving themselves a bad reputation.

[BorderMonum]

 

Wow, I had no idea any state had everything inventoried. That is an amazing thing: all the archaeological and historical sites located and assessed, and even more amazing (because it is a relatively recent thing) is that sacred places and TCP have been identified. Even for a small state like RI that is a massive undertaking - something us out west will likely never experience. You are very lucky. What state are you in?

 

Pennsyvania and specifically the state parks and state forests, which includes 117 state parks and 2.1 million acres of forests. Contrary to what you think many federal, state, and local agencies do the same. They have to, part of their job is knowing what resources are on their land and what needs to be protected. This is hardly a recent practice, certain technological improvments have made the process easier than inthe past.

 

I think you are equally confused about the west. I've spent time in Nevada and I can assure you the BLM people at Red Rocks have a simialr inventory. I think you need to do more research about this before you make any more blanket statements about what agencies do to inventory their land.

 

Well I was sorta being sarcastic - I am one of the people who do those inventories (and in fact am doing one right now in PA). As part of those inventories we have to figure out what piles of rocks are. One of the things that led me to this forum. But, that said, I am not trying to be confrontational. You can either accept the information or discard it as nonsense. I did check, and the 2.1 million acres of forest land you speak of has not been 100% surveyed for cultural resources. Ask them. An average of 40 acres can be surveyed per person day - so the 2.1 million acres you speak of would have required over 52,000 person days of work (that is 210 person years) - to just do the on the ground survey. That does not count the write-up, site maps, computerization of records etc. So yes, under section 110 of the NHPA agencies do have to inventory their land. In reality, 100% inventory rarely (if ever) happens.

[BorderMonum]

This is why I decided to Terracache. First of all it allows virtual caches which GC no longer allows, and it’s self policing, i.e. if it’s a poor cache, it can be voted into archival. Also, I can’t speak for other areas but in the north east, Terracaching is a smaller and more mature group.

 

In my area, the general impression is that cachers are a bunch of yahoos with no respect for their environment be it urban or rural. I have witnessed this first hand observing damage leading to and around caches, blatant trespassing, cache descriptions that lead you though posted land, illegal caches on private and posted land, caches in prohibited areas and so on. Cachers are giving themselves a bad reputation.

 

To date the reputation of cachers is not bad in the archaeological world - I and the folks I work with don't know enough about the process to make that determination. Hence, my lurking. (ok, not lurking anymore). As I said earlier - anyone going out in the wilderness can be an ally - keeping an eye out for illegal looters etc. There is only one reason in the world why geocachers cannot help protect cultural resources: ignorance. Again, most of the geocachers I have met in the field have been interested and respectful. I have not decided whether or not my experiment in reaching out was successful.

[+PhxChem]

Terracaching is a smaller and more mature group.

 

Do they have forums?

[+briansnat]

This is why I decided to Terracache. First of all it allows virtual caches which GC no longer allows, and it’s self policing, i.e. if it’s a poor cache, it can be voted into archival. Also, I can’t speak for other areas but in the north east, Terracaching is a smaller and more mature group.

 

In my area, the general impression is that cachers are a bunch of yahoos with no respect for their environment be it urban or rural. I have witnessed this first hand observing damage leading to and around caches, blatant trespassing, cache descriptions that lead you though posted land, illegal caches on private and posted land, caches in prohibited areas and so on. Cachers are giving themselves a bad reputation.

 

To date the reputation of cachers is not bad in the archaeological world - I and the folks I work with don't know enough about the process to make that determination. Hence, my lurking. (ok, not lurking anymore). As I said earlier - anyone going out in the wilderness can be an ally - keeping an eye out for illegal looters etc. There is only one reason in the world why geocachers cannot help protect cultural resources: ignorance. Again, most of the geocachers I have met in the field have been interested and respectful. I have not decided whether or not my experiment in reaching out was successful.

 

There are quite a few archaeologists who are also geocachers. I guess the urge to find things extends to stuff left behind weeks or months ago as well.

[Digital_Cowboy]

I have agree with OP on some points and other responders on other points. Some cache owners go to such extremes in making their caches as hard as possible to find that on top of using the sites encryption option that they write the hint with no space/punctuation or backwards with no space/punctuation. Or a keyword in the hint backwards.

 

Cache owners/hiders also need to remember that just because they perceive land/property to be “public” just because the public uses it. Doesn't mean that it's public property.

 

I was out looking for an “offset” or puzzle cache today. It has a puzzle on the description page one needs to solve in order to truly find the cache.

 

The first time I went looking for the cache I thought that the puzzle was near the published coords. I looked for I don't know how long. Wrote the cache owner, and had it explained that there is one or more clues hidden in/on the description page.

 

I went out again this past Sunday after obtaining the correct coords. Still didn't find it. Got a little help from another cacher, went back out Monday looked still no luck. While I was looking Monday I was approached by a security guard wanting to know:

 

Who was I?

What was I doing?

 

He also wanted to see my ID, get my address, name, date of birth, phone number.

 

I politely explained why I was there and what I was doing. Fortunately I had the description printed out and had said printout with me. After taking my information down he informed me that I was on private property and to leave.

 

When I got home I contacted the cache owner, asking if “he” had gotten permission to place “his” cache. They wrote back saying:

 

“no permission was sought as this is a public parking garage.

 

Sometimes you run into overly-cautious folks in uniform. Most of the time a simple explanation helps. If not, I generally move along and try again another time.”

 

I called the local police non-emergency line, and inquired about said “public” parking garage. And was informed that it was indeed private property. The only thing that I can deduce from the cache owners response is that they're under the false assumption that if the public has access to the property it must be “public property.”

 

This simply is not true, as there is such a thing as private property WITH public access. This covers grocery stores, malls, bowing lanes, and a wide host of other types of property.

 

So before you hide you're cache look around to see if there are any signs that might indicate that you're on private property. Such as this parking garage, there were signs on EVERY level indicating that it was ONLY for the business staff and visitors.

 

I also have to agree with those posters who have noted the damage that mother nature herself is capable of doing. I grew up in area up in NY that flooded rather spectacularly EVERY spring when the snow melted. I am now back home in Florida and anyone who's lived down here through just one hurricane season can tell you that even a “mild” hurricane season inflicts some damage. And mother nature bounces back nicely.

 

As a matter of fact IF left alone mother nature can take better care of herself, by herself. Then if man tries to help. An EXCELLENT example of this is when Mt. St. Helen blew. One side was left untouched by man, and the other side was “helped” by man.

 

Which side do you think recovered quickest?

 

 

Herman

Live Long and Prosper

[Digital_Cowboy]

I have agree with OP on some points and other responders on other points. Some cache owners go to such extremes in making their caches as hard as possible to find that on top of using the sites encryption option that they write the hint with no space/punctuation or backwards with no space/punctuation. Or a keyword in the hint backwards.

 

Cache owners/hiders also need to remember that just because they perceive land/property to be “public” just because the public uses it. Doesn't mean that it's public property.

 

I was out looking for an “offset” or puzzle cache today. It has a puzzle on the description page one needs to solve in order to truly find the cache.

 

The first time I went looking for the cache I thought that the puzzle was near the published coords. I looked for I don't know how long. Wrote the cache owner, and had it explained that there is one or more clues hidden in/on the description page.

 

I went out again this past Sunday after obtaining the correct coords. Still didn't find it. Got a little help from another cacher, went back out Monday looked still no luck. While I was looking Monday I was approached by a security guard wanting to know:

 

Who was I?

What was I doing?

 

He also wanted to see my ID, get my address, name, date of birth, phone number.

 

I politely explained why I was there and what I was doing. Fortunately I had the description printed out and had said printout with me. After taking my information down he informed me that I was on private property and to leave.

 

When I got home I contacted the cache owner, asking if “he” had gotten permission to place “his” cache. They wrote back saying:

 

“no permission was sought as this is a public parking garage.

 

Sometimes you run into overly-cautious folks in uniform. Most of the time a simple explanation helps. If not, I generally move along and try again another time.”

 

I called the local police non-emergency line, and inquired about said “public” parking garage. And was informed that it was indeed private property. The only thing that I can deduce from the cache owners response is that they're under the false assumption that if the public has access to the property it must be “public property.”

 

This simply is not true, as there is such a thing as private property WITH public access. This covers grocery stores, malls, bowing lanes, and a wide host of other types of property.

 

So before you hide you're cache look around to see if there are any signs that might indicate that you're on private property. Such as this parking garage, there were signs on EVERY level indicating that it was ONLY for the business staff and visitors.

 

I also have to agree with those posters who have noted the damage that mother nature herself is capable of doing. I grew up in area up in NY that flooded rather spectacularly EVERY spring when the snow melted. I am now back home in Florida and anyone who's lived down here through just one hurricane season can tell you that even a “mild” hurricane season inflicts some damage. And mother nature bounces back nicely.

 

As a matter of fact IF left alone mother nature can take better care of herself, by herself. Then if man tries to help. An EXCELLENT example of this is when Mt. St. Helen blew. One side was left untouched by man, and the other side was “helped” by man.

 

Which side do you think recovered quickest?

 

 

Herman

Live Long and Prosper

[Digital_Cowboy]

OK, since there's a problem with the concept of foreseeing problems caused by a well-hidden cache in a sensitive area, what about an existing cache that has become the epicenter of searcher-caused destruction? The scenario: You own a cache, and with each new log come new reports of damage to the surroundings: do you do nothing and say "their fault" or take some kind of action to correct the problem?

 

And if your answer is "take action" why is it necessary to wait until a predictable problem predictably occurs?

Because the problem is not as predictable as some are making it appear to be.

 

If we assume that it's true that someone peeled all the bark off of a tree while looking for a cache, who'da thunk it? Should we no longer hide caches in the general area of trees? No caches should be placed in or near a parking lot because some cachers might break into cars looking for the cache.

 

I guess I should look at this as good news, because I can frequently predict which caches are going to cause problems. Must mean I have a special gift.

 

In the case of the example cache, it wasn't the proximity to the tree, it was the extreme camouflage. When a cache is hidden in a chink in a stone wall, my clairvoyance enables me to predict that cachers will end up loosening stones and pulling out bits of mortar. Spooky.

 

The fact that you have to reach for such extreme scenarios as cachers breaking into cars* indicates the weakness of your position. I have not said that hiders are responsible for every action taken by searchers. They are not. But when you hide something with the objective of making it difficult to find, you by definition are anticipating where a reasonable person might look, and not putting it there. So you do have the ability to predict common responses by searchers and to some extent manipulate them.

 

You can't hide something effectively without going through this process of elimination. You'll be wrong sometimes, of course, but if you know that you're placing a tough hide, look around at those obvious places that you didn't put the cache and try to assess whether they'd be damaged by a clumsy manual search. Is that too much to expect?

 

If you couldn't predict that a particular cache would be hard to find, how would you assign a difficulty rating anyhow?

 

Look, it's perfectly understandable that folks are sick and tired of our litigious society that rewards people for irresponsibility and idiocy. Spill hot coffee on yourself in a moving car? Make millions suing the restaurant! It's ridiculous. It's enough to make you want to make a sacrament of individual responsibility in the geo-world. Fair enough, but hiders bear some responsibility, too.

 

*BTW, caches shouldn't be placed in parking lots for a whole variety of valid reasons that have nothing to do with vehicular B&E

 

I fully agree that the cache hider/owner needs to also take responsibility for the damage done to a given area. Just as motorists need to responsibility for their actions. Monday on my home from the local library I had a woman turn into a driveway/side street/intersection that I was in and come within in inches of me on my bicycle. Last week, or the week before I was working my way over to left hand turn lane when a woman in a mini-van pulling out of the parking lot of a local grocery store. I can see that she is looking south, but doesn't look north until she starts to actually pull out. I see her say/mouth the words "oh s$%t." As I'm sure she thought that I had "just popped up out of nowhere." Yet had she bothered to LOOK both ways BEFORE pulling out she'd have seen me on my bicycle BEFORE she pulled out.

[cliff_hanger]

It's funny that that the OP has not posted back to this thread since lobbing the hand grenade.

 

Looking at the cache that started this discussion, I see a lot of very positive logs and the mentioning of the stonewalls seems to be almost casual. (GCNH50)

 

I haven't done that cache, but am very familiar with the area as I used to fish there in a different lifetime. The area is very popular with fisherman and maybe more so with local kids. You can tell from the broken glass and beer bottles. So, I wonder where the damage came from? Perhaps fishermen and local kids should be BANNED

[magellan315]

Well I was sorta being sarcastic - I am one of the people who do those inventories (and in fact am doing one right now in PA). As part of those inventories we have to figure out what piles of rocks are. One of the things that led me to this forum. But, that said, I am not trying to be confrontational. You can either accept the information or discard it as nonsense.

 

Since you cannot hear the tone of voice in a post, you cannot hear sarcasm. Here is an idea for you to use in the future, [sarcasm] Gosh Bordermonum we had no idea how Geocaching can impact an area, thank you for enlightening us. [/sarcasm]

 

If you actually had some understanding of Geocaching sarcasm wouldn’t have been necessary. I did not claim that there was 100% coverage, you asked to identify the state and I gave the details. However if you understood that most Geocaches are placed 50’ to 100’ off of an existing trail, I would assume that the areas of land around the trails are well surveyed.

 

I have not decided whether or not my experiment in reaching out was successful.

 

I’m not sure what you intended with your experiment, but I get the sense you were trying to educate a group of people you thought were misinformed. You seem to give us no choice other than accept what you say or discard it as nonsense, but you seem to discard everything we say as nonsense.

 

If you took the time learn about some of the people who post here regularly they include Geocachers who have worked with state and local agencies to create acceptable Geocaching policies, people who teach Geocaching classes for local parks and plan CITO’s on a regular basis, or work in similar jobs to yours.

 

After seven years on these forums I can tell you that you are not the first person who has tried to educate us. They tend to give us facts based solely on their perspective, with limited if any Geocaching experience, and then get offended when anyone questions what they are saying. Kind of like seagulls at the beach, they show up, crap on you, make lots of squawking noises, and then fly off.

[BorderMonum]

Well I was sorta being sarcastic - I am one of the people who do those inventories (and in fact am doing one right now in PA). As part of those inventories we have to figure out what piles of rocks are. One of the things that led me to this forum. But, that said, I am not trying to be confrontational. You can either accept the information or discard it as nonsense.

 

Since you cannot hear the tone of voice in a post, you cannot hear sarcasm. Here is an idea for you to use in the future, [sarcasm] Gosh Bordermonum we had no idea how Geocaching can impact an area, thank you for enlightening us. [/sarcasm]

 

If you actually had some understanding of Geocaching sarcasm wouldn’t have been necessary. I did not claim that there was 100% coverage, you asked to identify the state and I gave the details. However if you understood that most Geocaches are placed 50’ to 100’ off of an existing trail, I would assume that the areas of land around the trails are well surveyed.

 

I have not decided whether or not my experiment in reaching out was successful.

 

I’m not sure what you intended with your experiment, but I get the sense you were trying to educate a group of people you thought were misinformed. You seem to give us no choice other than accept what you say or discard it as nonsense, but you seem to discard everything we say as nonsense.

 

If you took the time learn about some of the people who post here regularly they include Geocachers who have worked with state and local agencies to create acceptable Geocaching policies, people who teach Geocaching classes for local parks and plan CITO’s on a regular basis, or work in similar jobs to yours.

 

After seven years on these forums I can tell you that you are not the first person who has tried to educate us. They tend to give us facts based solely on their perspective, with limited if any Geocaching experience, and then get offended when anyone questions what they are saying. Kind of like seagulls at the beach, they show up, crap on you, make lots of squawking noises, and then fly off.

 

I guess I misunderstood you when you said that you live in a state that has a statewide GIS system that includes all sensitive areas. And I think that everyone here agrees that 99.9% of caches do not pose a problem to anything. However, it seemed to me (apparently wrongly) that there was some question as to why geocaches would be banned from an area.

 

As for giving you facts based on my perspective, does it matter? Facts are facts. . . . . there is stuff out there, recorded or not, that needs to be avoided. Federal and state laws (most states anyway) protect cultural resources (these range from prehistoric rock piles to historic bridges - not cars, and tcps). This is one reason why caches may be banned in any particular area.

 

I find it interesting that you state that I am not the first person who has triedto educate you. Are we being obtuse? Do you not wish to be educated? As I have said before, I am reading these boards to learn more about this topic. Do I have to be here 7 years to understand? If so, do you have to read archy boards for 7 years to understand what I am saying? As to your seagull anaolgy, maybe they fly away because you throw rocks at them.

[+sbell111]

Well I was sorta being sarcastic - I am one of the people who do those inventories (and in fact am doing one right now in PA). As part of those inventories we have to figure out what piles of rocks are. One of the things that led me to this forum. But, that said, I am not trying to be confrontational. You can either accept the information or discard it as nonsense.

 

Since you cannot hear the tone of voice in a post, you cannot hear sarcasm. Here is an idea for you to use in the future, [sarcasm] Gosh Bordermonum we had no idea how Geocaching can impact an area, thank you for enlightening us. [/sarcasm]

 

If you actually had some understanding of Geocaching sarcasm wouldn’t have been necessary. I did not claim that there was 100% coverage, you asked to identify the state and I gave the details. However if you understood that most Geocaches are placed 50’ to 100’ off of an existing trail, I would assume that the areas of land around the trails are well surveyed.

 

I have not decided whether or not my experiment in reaching out was successful.

 

I’m not sure what you intended with your experiment, but I get the sense you were trying to educate a group of people you thought were misinformed. You seem to give us no choice other than accept what you say or discard it as nonsense, but you seem to discard everything we say as nonsense.

 

If you took the time learn about some of the people who post here regularly they include Geocachers who have worked with state and local agencies to create acceptable Geocaching policies, people who teach Geocaching classes for local parks and plan CITO’s on a regular basis, or work in similar jobs to yours.

 

After seven years on these forums I can tell you that you are not the first person who has tried to educate us. They tend to give us facts based solely on their perspective, with limited if any Geocaching experience, and then get offended when anyone questions what they are saying. Kind of like seagulls at the beach, they show up, crap on you, make lots of squawking noises, and then fly off.

 

I guess I misunderstood you when you said that you live in a state that has a statewide GIS system that includes all sensitive areas. And I think that everyone here agrees that 99.9% of caches do not pose a problem to anything. However, it seemed to me (apparently wrongly) that there was some question as to why geocaches would be banned from an area.

 

As for giving you facts based on my perspective, does it matter? Facts are facts. . . . . there is stuff out there, recorded or not, that needs to be avoided. Federal and state laws (most states anyway) protect cultural resources (these range from prehistoric rock piles to historic bridges - not cars, and tcps). This is one reason why caches may be banned in any particular area.

 

I find it interesting that you state that I am not the first person who has triedto educate you. Are we being obtuse? Do you not wish to be educated? As I have said before, I am reading these boards to learn more about this topic. Do I have to be here 7 years to understand? If so, do you have to read archy boards for 7 years to understand what I am saying? As to your seagull anaolgy, maybe they fly away because you throw rocks at them.

squawk

[BorderMonum]

squawk

 

Exactly why you are misunderstood.

[magellan315]

I guess I misunderstood you when you said that you live in a state that has a statewide GIS system that includes all sensitive areas. And I think that everyone here agrees that 99.9% of caches do not pose a problem to anything. However, it seemed to me (apparently wrongly) that there was some question as to why geocaches would be banned from an area.

 

As for giving you facts based on my perspective, does it matter? Facts are facts. . . . . there is stuff out there, recorded or not, that needs to be avoided. Federal and state laws (most states anyway) protect cultural resources (these range from prehistoric rock piles to historic bridges - not cars, and tcps). This is one reason why caches may be banned in any particular area.

 

I find it interesting that you state that I am not the first person who has triedto educate you. Are we being obtuse? Do you not wish to be educated? As I have said before, I am reading these boards to learn more about this topic. Do I have to be here 7 years to understand? If so, do you have to read archy boards for 7 years to understand what I am saying? As to your seagull anaolgy, maybe they fly away because you throw rocks at them.

 

What I am saying is that you are not the first person to show up on these boards with no experience or understanding of Geocaching and then attempt to "educate" us about what we do and do not know. If you want to learn more about Geocaching, go out and find some, stop hanging out in the forums. Come back when you have found 25 caches, preferably no micros, so you can have a real idea as to how and where Geocaches are hidden.

 

There is no question as to why Geocaches sometimes get banned. As matter of fact it is clearly spelled out in the guidelines for hiding a cache, try reading them. Your not telling us anything new and you are coming off as preachy and sarcastic. You keep stating how we can accept what you say as fact or dismiss it as nonsense. But you dismiss everything that is said by people who have found Geocaches and work with land managers as nonsense.

Edited May 13, 2008 by magellan315

[Digital_Cowboy]

I've got an idea! How about we just plainly tell people exactly where the cache is so that there is absolutely no danger of any problems whatsoever.

 

Even if a cache is planted near a rose garden, shouldn't people know better than trompling on rose bushes? Since when did I become responsible for the stupid behavior of other people? And in addition, you'd have me believe that in addition to being responsible for other people's bad behavior, I'm also responsible for other people's perceived behavior.

 

No thanks! (although, if a bunch of morons destroyed the rose bushes, I'd probably archive the cache, but that in no way would prevent me from bringing people to a garden to enjoy rose bushes)

 

You're missing the point, both the hider AND the searcher are responsible for the damage caused.

 

If the hider goes out of their way to place a cache in an area in such a way that the average person using common sense cannot find the cache. Utilizing the description and any published hints. And a searcher comes along, printout in hand, hint decrypted. Their GPSr "tells" the seeker is 0.0' from the cache. Their GPSr is also giving them an accuracy of 10' in the area where the cache is hidden.

 

This mean's that they will be searching an area 10' in diameter. Which can encompass a fair amount of territory to search. It is, can, should be conceivable to the hider that given no two GPSr (even same make/model) are going to give identical readings. And that even the accuracy can and will vary depending on cloud cover, trees, buildings, etc.

 

So the search area could end up being larger or smaller. And seekers having exhausted all logical areas for will start to look in the non-logical areas. And by doing so that can result in damage being done to the environment.

 

This is very similar to the bans shopping centers, parks, and what not have put on bicycles, skateboards, roller blades. They've put those bans in place because they've learned that skateboards, bicycles and roller blades/skates can damage railings, stairs and other equipment. As well those who engage in those activities can injure themselves or others.

 

EVERYTHING we do involves risks, but there are things we can do to minimize those risks. And if you place a cache that's a 5-* difficulty in an area where you have every reason to believe that seekers will end up searching feet or yards away from the site. Then YOU have an obligation to minimize the damage that will result from people looking for it.

 

You as the hider also have an obligation to secure permission before placing a cache. I was out looking for a cache in a parking garage rhat the hider thought was public property. While I was looking for the cache I was approached by a security guard, wanting to know who I was and what I was doing. He asked to see my ID as well as taking down my name, address and phone number. As well as infoming me that it was private property. His reaction and actions told me that hider did NOT get permission before hiding their cache. Because if they had the security guard would have known what I was doing.

[magellan315]

squawk

 

Exactly why you are misunderstood.

 

Once again sarcasm is not going to help you educate anyone.

Edited May 13, 2008 by magellan315

[+Keruso]

Second, no land managing agency has the money to inventory all the lands under their jurisdiction to identify "sensitive" areas. If the area the car rally people want to use has not been inventoried, the agency requires that they pay for the surveys, and any resulting mitigation.

Living as I do in a state that DOES have a statewide, GIS-based inventory of sensitive areas, and which works cooperatively with geocachers to check proposed placements against that database, I cannot give your post any credibility. I had to adjust a proposed cache once because the inventory database warned of protected rare ferns in the area.

 

Be careful when you make sweeping statements like that.

 

Wow, I had no idea any state had everything inventoried. That is an amazing thing: all the archaeological and historical sites located and assessed, and even more amazing (because it is a relatively recent thing) is that sacred places and TCP have been identified. Even for a small state like RI that is a massive undertaking - something us out west will likely never experience. You are very lucky. What state are you in?

 

the Leps(and Keystone), like myself, live in PA

 

i didn't know that either

[BorderMonum]

[

What I am saying is that you are not the first person to show up on these boards with no experience or understanding of Geocaching and then attempt to "educate" us about what we do and do not know. If you want to learn more about Geocaching, go out and find some, stop hanging out in the forums. Come back when you have found 25 caches, preferably no micros, so you can have a real idea as to how and where Geocaches are hidden.

 

There is no question as to why Geocaches sometimes get banned. As matter of fact it is clearly spelled out in the guidelines for hiding a cache, try reading them. Your not telling us anything new and you are coming off as preachy and sarcastic. You keep stating how we can accept what you say as fact or dismiss it as nonsense. But you dismiss everything that is said by people who have found Geocaches and work with land managers as nonsense.

 

hmmm. I think the only thing I have dismissed as nonsense was the assertation that all public lands have been fully inventoried, and as you have clarified, you meant only within roads and trail r-o-ws.

 

And I have found caches, albeit unwittingly. Imagine my surprise to find a pile of golf balls in the corner of a field house.

[Digital_Cowboy]

I see so many points flying here and then conversations about Monty Python my head is spinning.

 

While I can understand the original posters thoughts on the matter and others, I do think it comes down to following the restrictions set in place by Groundspeak to ensure the hides are correct. It is up to the hider to ensure that the cache isn't all but impossible. It is up to the searcher to be responsible. If it starts getting questionable... stop. Do not take DNF as a failure. Walk away. Think about it. Give it a couple days.... Reviewers who are reviewing a cache should actually pay attention to where it is and if it is in an area that is known to have rare wildlife or vegetation, make sure this cache is clear and concise to avoid damage - if they even approve it at all.

 

Fact is property owners have a right to allow or restrict caches. If a park chooses to restrict caches and remove them, perhaps it is the hiders fault for not seeking permission in the first place. Sure, public places we see as "public places" and in most cases, permission is not necessary on the whole, but when you are talking about places with "rare and sensitive vegetation" (not standard grass and regular ole trees) perhaps it would be in the hiders best interest to ask first.

 

The example relating a hider to a person who forgot to lock their front door and got robbed is a bit off kilter. A person never asks to be robbed, but a person who hides a cache is doing it HOPING someone comes to find it. I have never left my door unlocked and prayed for someone to rob me. So - while a good attempt to liken caching to something real and negative.... sorry. Don't see it.

 

SO... what I'm saying is it really is all of geocaching's responsibility. Groundspeak, hiders, finders, reviewers.... When I hide a cache I have to make sure its good and not going to endanger anyone or anything. When I find one, it is my responsibility to not go through it like a bull in a china shop and just enjoy where I am.

 

Unfortunately, my biggest complaint about using parks is that.. if its not a park or a cemetary.... its generally not a cache location. BLAH

 

So.

 

Save Wildlife, yay.

Save plants, yay.

Save caching, yay.

 

We all agree. Carry on.

 

 

Let's not also forget that Groundspeak/gc.com ISN'T the only "game" in town. there are other national/international web sites/databases/groups out there. There are also pleanty of local and regional web sites/databases/groups out there. And it's irresponsible for Groundspeak/gc.com to set the rules for everyone who caches.

[+Keruso]

 

but is the body of a '62 Buick in the woods really an archaeological site? Give me a break.

 

I think the Eagle scouts have a project to place a brass plaque on a pedestal there...describing the historical significance of the car.

 

..............................

 

do not make fun of us Eagle Scouts....................

[+Renegade Knight]

...I see your point when the resources are plant/animal. When it comes to archaeological sites and TCPs, it is the act of moving things around (rocks, structural elements etc) that get ya'll in trouble when those items are part of a protected resource. Yes hikers do that too - using rocks as tent stakes, making fire rings etc. But it is the ubiquity with which it is done that is the issue. As someone pointed out in an earlier post, all it takes is one bad apple. And I noted that the posts in other forums all caution not to mess up things. But in the western US, all it would take is one person mucking up a shrine to get everyone riled up and on the "ban" bandwagon. Sure, off roaders do more damage, as do timber trucks, yahoos with too much alcohol and ammo and not enough sense ( I have been shot at). But with the pervasive "good old boy" mentality at a lot of agencies (off roading is manly did you know?) you can see why pedestrian activites get the short end of the stick.

 

As for 50 year old cans being considered important - age is only one determining criterion. But that is a good example of an instance where something does not look "important" when it very well could be. I guess that is my point all along - a random wall, a rock cairn, an overhang could look like nothing - when it is in fact sacred to someone, or archaeologically/historically significant and thus, "important".

 

There are some very big flaws in the process.

First TCP's. Those are determiend by the C claiming the P and they need say nothing at all about the T. Nor do they need to give you a specific geographic boundary. They can give you an area. If someone elses TCP is important, my TCP is also important and it may overlap with theirs.

 

Then there is the secrecy angle. Sorry but I can't protect what I don't know about. I'm not giving up my fishing becuse someone else died nearby and nobody is going to tell me where. Heck I can't even pay my respects when I don't know. Even if I did know I'd not give up my fishing. I'd pay my respects as I passed. Banning things from a spot due to an unrecoverable past (as in archaeologists recovering the site) is giving more value to the past than the living and present. Of course if they did recover the archaelogical resource there would be no need to keep it secret, it would be somewhere else and that spot would be untainted with the secret resource. If I died at my fishing hole I'd not begrudge others the experinece of fishing.

 

Past cultures were very rude when they lived, worked, played, and died in all the same locations we modern people like to live, work, play and die. One key difference is that they didn't pass a bunch of artificial laws to protect their ancestors. Respect was enough. Or are we rude to have passed laws trying to preserve things by keeping us away from our past, and hiding the existance of our forbearers?

 

If Turning over a rock can destroy a resource...it's a good candidate for recovery since leaving it in place is not going to preserve it.

 

I find it ironic that using rocks to make a fire ring (a long established cultural practice) is bad if the rock was part of another fire ring of sufficient age.

 

Since you are in the profession you should be apprecativie of the irony you wade through every day doing your job.

 

Meanwhile think on this. Peak Registers, Letterboxing, and Caching all have histories rooted for hundreds of years that may not give caching as it is now historical status but the longevity of the activitiy does qualify it for consideration as a Traditional Cultural Practice worth protecting itself.

[+Renegade Knight]

...As to your seagull anaolgy, maybe they fly away because you throw rocks at them.

Good comeback. By all means stick around.

[+Renegade Knight]

...is the body of a '62 Buick in the woods really an archaeological site? Give me a break.

 

Context is key, more so the closer you get to our own era. They should know what makes that 62 Buick in the woods historical as opposed to the 3000 other ones that are just scrap iron waiting to be recycled.

[BorderMonum]

[

 

 

If Turning over a rock can destroy a resource...it's a good candidate for recovery since leaving it in place is not going to preserve it.

 

This hits the heart of one of the things I was trying to say. Unless the feature from which the rock came has been assessed who knows if it will be destroyed. That depends on the age, the ubiquity of that type of feature, its integrity and a host of other things. Could be that it is not a big deal. Could be a huge deal. Recovery of resources is usually done when the resource is in peril, like from a new road, fiber optic line, cell tower etc. (this is how the previous discussion about inventories started - aaaack).

 

I don't think caching would qualify as a TCP - but certainly some early caches as you describe could be considered archaeological sites, and under criterion "a" be considered eligible for the NRHP. And as for irony - you bet. I can't even begin to tell you what an understatement that is. And boy is it frustrating to be shown a huge circle on a map that basically means "stay out" without any explanation.

[Digital_Cowboy]

I do believe there are instances where we need to get away from the stump-the-geocacher mentality and go back to stump-the-muggle. I’m not advocating blaze orange large containers. Let’s be reasonable. We all know there are hide-types that a cacher will recognize instantly while surviving against muggle discovery for years. The closer to a sensitive area the more appropriate this type of hide becomes.

Exactly.

 

Hiders also need to remember that just because they see a stretch of land/property that they assume to be public doesn’t mean that it is public property. It may very well be private property. IF you are EVER in doubt as to the nature of a piece of property ASK the following questions:

 

1. Who owns this piece of property?

2. Is it really public property or is it private property?

3. Does the owner of the property want “thousands” of people “trampling” through their land on a “daily” basis?

 

Also look around to see if there are any signs posted that may suggest that the piece of land is private vs. public, such as “Parking for staff/visitors only, all others will be towed at owners expense.” A sign like that would be VERY good evidence that the parking lot, garage is private property. And if a cache is hidden in such a location then those who go searching for it have every reason to believe that the hider got permission to hide it.

 

Yes, there are some out there who feel that it is easier to apologize AFTER the fact then it is to ask for permission. But stop and really think about what it is you are doing. You may very well be hurting the hobby by thinking like that.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Digital_Cowboy

[+Renegade Knight]

...

This hits the heart of one of the things I was trying to say. Unless the feature from which the rock came has been assessed who knows if it will be destroyed....

The need to assess is an artifact of modern law. It's not a requirment of recreation. Recreation and life can get along just fine without the assessment. Most times after the assessment nothing whatsoever changes about life for the vast majority of people.

 

In other words. Unassessed ground is perfectly ok for us to go about our lives on in whatever form that may take. If the law demands that we take a closer look we will, but to think that living our everyday lives requires this level of scruteny is a bit much.

[Digital_Cowboy]

Again hiders you need to stop and think whether or not the property you’re about to place a cache on is truly public private property or is it public property. Even IF it’s public property you should still try to get permission from someone who has authority over said property.

 

The cache that I was talking about has been archived because:

 

It appears that security at the public parking garage is tightening too much to allow for lingering searches. Thanks to all who tried and the few who succeeded....

 

The cache owner did not get permission first assuming that the parking garage is/was public, it is not. Now that the security personal are doing their job it would appear that he is blaming them for doing their job. There are signs around where his cache is suppose to have been hidden that clearly indicate that said parking garage is for hospital staff/visitors only. And that all others will be towed away at the owners expense.

 

no permission was sought as this is a public parking garage.

 

Sometimes you run into overly-cautious folks in uniform. Most of the time a simple explanation helps. If not, I generally move along and try again another time.

 

The above referenced “public” parking garage is NOT a public parking garage it is private property. Something that the hider would have found out had he sought permission.

 

It is reasonable for people who go out looking for this cache to presume that permission had been secured for the placement of the cache, and that as such it was alright for seekers to go looking for it. Sadly that is not what had happened.

 

If we wish to be able to continue to hide caches we need to be respectful of those who own or manage the property on which we wish to hide a cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The above referenced “public” parking garage is NOT a public parking garage it is private property. Something that the hider would have found out had he sought permission.

 

It is reasonable for people who go out looking for this cache to presume that permission had been secured for the placement of the cache, and that as such it was alright for seekers to go looking for it. Sadly that is not what had happened....

 

Security invervention and land owner/manager permission are two different things. Even if the owner places the cache themselves they will have problems with security. Caches where there is active security is a bad idea regardless of the permission angle (though someone can beat the odds and make it work).

[+jellis]

I think they should ban sprinkler head caches. I have gone to so many places that have the guts to sprinklers all over because they are looking for a cache. If it is not in a sprinkler they should mention it on the cache page. And what about caches that look like litter (cans and bottles etc) well when they disappear don't blame a cacher blame the park's clean up crews. Now my 2 cents about caches and damages. Put in your cache page where not to enter or don't put caches in a place that would end up being trampled or destroyed. I know a cacher who places caches in spots that you almost have to move debris to find them and then gets anger when we do it. Especially needle in haystack caches. And my vent on the parks and trails. Today I was leaving one and in goes two boys with their mountain bikes. Hmmm wonder where they are going? Yes some use the trails or they make new ones. And what about the litter of bottles and cans by muggles. There I am done for now.