Unique Cache or Bad for the Game?

[+CentralCArn]

We found a cache in our area recently and I would like to get some input from others in the forums.

 

The cache was placed in a phone book at a gas station. The hint was something like " 'X' marks the spot." The second part of the hint gave a large number. As soon as we pulled up to the phone booth, I spotted a fairly large X marked on the bottom of the phone book hanging in the phone booth. Sure enough, the large number given in the hint corresponded to the page number in the telephone book. Glued onto a certain page was the log clearly marked as a Geocache log.

 

At first I was impressed by the "unique" hide. After contemplating, I am not sure that this is a hide that would fit the guidelines. The cache appears to be placed about a 5 hour drive from the majority of the owners other hides.

 

Any other thoughts on this or will this type now become "the rage" after being posted here.

[+Too Tall John]

If you think the distance for the owner breaks the guidelines, I disagree: Maintainable distances will vary from cacher to cacher.

 

If you think the fact that the phone book was defaced in order to create the cache, I might agree: it depends on how the log is attached & if it makes that page unusable. Of course, people have been known to tear out entire pages from phone books... (Which isn't really an excuse, but...)

 

If you think the guidelines are being broken in some other way, you have not specified.

 

Warning: Insufficient Input!

[+ohgrl]

Personally I don't like this type of hide...but there are those that do consider this unique. We have a local one that is similar where the phone is actually inside the doorway of a business that seems well received by the geocaching community...I only went for it because someone told me RIGHT where it was.

 

You will find many cachers like those kind and many cachers like to put those on the "ignore"

[+TotemLake]

X marks the spot...

 

Did the "cache" owner mark the X? That's defacement.

 

Does the owner have permission to do this on private property? The booth is typically the property of the telephone company or franchise owner.

 

That's the way I see it.

[+dew cache]

There are a few questions like did he get permission from the land owner where the phone booth is, did he get permission from the phone booth owner and how long before someone rips out the page? I think it is a bad idea myself who in their right mind is going to look through a book at every page for a cache? How is it rated if you do not have or don’t look at the hints it will defiantly not be rated 1, is it a listed as a micro or a regular I mean the container is the size of a phone book but the cache is only one page thick. Once I found one it would be the last time for me if I knew what it was, just like LPC.

[jholly]

It seems to me the cache would go missing once a year. (when the book is replaced). That sounds like a dumb cache. Also a pay phone is an endangered species, subject to extinction at any time.

 

I don't know, I probably would drop a line to the reviewer.

 

Jim

[+Too Tall John]

...Also a pay phone is an endangered species, subject to extinction at any time...

...which would make it a unique hide. As long as it lasts.

 

I'm still curious which aspect of the cache the OP is wondering about...

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

On the phone kiosk is quite common, in the book is not.

 

Of the few pay phones left in my area I can't think of one that has an intact phone book.

[CoyoteRed]

Glued onto a certain page was the log clearly marked as a Geocache log.

I'd be kind of ticked off if I were looking for some business and it so happen to be under the glued in "log."

 

Naw, I'm not fond of this type of thinking outside the box.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

On the phone kiosk is quite common, in the book is not.

 

Of the few pay phones left in my area I can't think of one that has an intact phone book.

 

My thought as well: "There are pay phones that still have phone books in them?"

 

We often point out that caches like these should get dumped into your ignore file, but the reality of it is... it's a quick stop that doesn't require any effort other than heaving yourself out of your car/truck/SUV and flipping through a few pages of a phone book to find the log (at most, you're going to spend a few minutes casing the phone booth/stand).

 

It's a drive-by in a paved lot that is on par with any of the LPC's in every freakin' WalMart in Everytown, USA. It's going to get the finds. And I bet it's going to get a number of 'great idea!' logs, too.

 

 

michelle

[+JohnnyVegas]

It is hard to find a pay phone with a phone book and

the person that placed the cache damaged the phone book.

 

To me it is not a good hide.

 

I do not know about the 5 hour drive, could it be that the cacher recently moved or has business in the area on a regular basis.

[+sbell111]

<shrug>

[+sbell111]

I wonder how many posts will be made to this thread before 'the rest of the story' is given.

[+briansnat]

Sounds like vandalism to me and I doubt it would have been published if the reviewer knew the details.

[Mr.Yuck]

I wonder how many posts will be made to this thread before 'the rest of the story' is given.

 

I don't know, but we'll have to put you down for at least two.

 

Sounds like defacing the phonebook on the surface, but the cache owner could have provided the phone book. Unlikely he has permission from the phone company and/or the gas station. I wouldn't go as far as saying bad for the game, but I agree with CurmudgeonlyGal; it will get a ton of finds, and a ton of "great idea" logs.

[+whistler & co.]

It is hard to find a pay phone with a phone book and

the person that placed the cache damaged the phone book.

 

To me it is not a good hide.

 

I do not know about the 5 hour drive, could it be that the cacher recently moved or has business in the area on a regular basis.

 

Perhaps the person who hid the cache provided the phone book?

 

I can't imagine a cacher removing the bird's nest, then adding hinges to an EXISTING birdhouse in a park, but to bring your OWN birdhouse cache and place it in a park is a different story. Someone who is not in the know might assume the finder of such a cache is wantonly attacking the fledgings presumably inside the birdhouse, and that uninformed observer might then report the incident to park security, which would no doubt result in a small piece on the 6 o'clock news, and also a new forum thread, etc., etc. As for the phone book cache, why not just sign in (or not, if you really disliked the cache) and continue on your way. It's not a big deal, in my opinion.

 

(edited for typo)

Edited May 30, 2008 by whistler & co.

[+JohnnyVegas]

the hider could have placed a container in the phone both that could instruct the cacher to look up a someones phone number to find the final. Some thing like "look up the last three digits of Joes burger shack to fill in the blank" even when the phone book is changed the finder will still be able to look up Joes burger shack, also even if the book is gone if the cacher can call information for the number.

Edited May 30, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

[+joranda]

It is hard to find a pay phone with a phone book and

the person that placed the cache damaged the phone book.

 

To me it is not a good hide.

 

I do not know about the 5 hour drive, could it be that the cacher recently moved or has business in the area on a regular basis.

 

Perhaps the person who hid the cache provided the phone book?

 

I can't imagine a cacher removing the bird's nest, then adding hinges to an EXISTING birdhouse in a park, but to bring your OWN birdhouse cache and place it in a park is a different story. Someone who is not in the know might assume the finder of such a cache is wantonly attacking the fledgings presumably inside the birdhouse, and that uninformed observer might then report the incident to park security, which would no doubt result in a small piece on the 6 o'clock news, and also a new forum thread, etc., etc. As for the phone book cache, why not just sign in (or not, if you really disliked the cache) and continue on your way. It's not a big deal, in my opinion.

 

(edited for typo)

 

My thoughts too. They may have supplied the phone book for the booth. Like many have said, how often do you find a phone book in the booth now a days. How often do you find phones that even work in those booths. Why does it come up to thinking that they defaced anything?

Edited May 30, 2008 by joranda

[+KerBear]

never seen this type of hide then again most of our phone booths don't have phone books with them anymore. you're lucky to find the phone and even more lucky if it works. thought about something where you found a number as suggested above but decided against it. as others said-many people will find it. don't know if it'll start a trend or not. regardless-it got you off your couch and out. defacing the phone book may be an issue. some people do still use them!

[+Team Black-Cat]

Perhaps the cache owner also owns the gas station and the phone booth

Perhaps, his/her other hides are the ones that are five hours from home.

Perhaps the log was glued to the edge of the Notes page thus not obliterating any adverts or phone numbers.

Perhaps, like any good cache owner, he/she does regular maintenance on the cache and replaces the log as needed.

 

Or maybe not...

[Clan Riffster]

We haven't heard from the cache owner, so the details are obviously lacking for any kind of formal judgment call. If the owner did tape something to an existing phone book, then I would agree it is a terrible precedent. Phone book pages are typically very thin and easy to tear. The only readily available adhesive I can think of that wouldn't rip the paper when it's removed would be along the lines of post it notes, and I can't imagine that holding up very long. If the issue is defacing property, tearing a piece of paper that belongs to someone else would certainly qualify. True, the value of a single piece of paper is negligible, but it's still defacement, and as such would constitute a guidelines violation.

 

If the owner provided their own phone book, more power to them.

[+Lil Devil]

Since the cache is now archived, I guess the reviewers saw it as a guidelines violation, too.

[+russellvt]

I can't imagine a cacher removing the bird's nest, then adding hinges to an EXISTING birdhouse in a park, but to bring your OWN birdhouse cache and place it in a park is a different story. Someone who is not in the know might assume the finder of such a cache is wantonly attacking the fledgings presumably inside the birdhouse, and that uninformed observer might then report the incident to park security, which would no doubt result in a small piece on the 6 o'clock news, and also a new forum thread, etc., etc.

Well, the worst part about that type of cache (hopefully not to hijack this thread too off-topic or anything) is that it tends to teach certain types of cachers that those hides "are reasonable," and they're apt to now start checking or partially dismantling nearby birdhouses, nests, sprinklers, electrical boxes, etc in hopes of "chalking up another find."

 

And, not to be redundant, but I've heard this objection largely waged against the famed "sprinkler cache." While I think that a good sprinkler cache should be rather obvious to someone who's a bit more observant (eg. a different style/brand of sprinklers than any in a given area), they also tend to be uprooted by the unsuspecting gardener who's wondering why one of the sprinklers isn't working during their periodic tests/adjustments.

 

Likewise, I think the phonebook cache is a little over-the-top, personally... interesting idea, but prone to several issues that others have already pointed out. Luckily it sounds as though it might have already been disabled.

 

Funny, as to now, I didn't really think much about previous "phone booth" caches (or light post caches) for that matter (eg. the private property issue(s)), but I'm sure I probably have a half dozen or more under my belt from here and there...

[+benh57]

I've seen 2 of these in the LA area.

 

Both were disabled within a few months from the book being replaced.

 

I'm not too concerned with the defacement of the phone book, since noone uses those things anyway. It's not any worse than sticking an altoids tin to the booth...

[+Flatouts]

There are still phone booths out there??? Dang..you learn something new every day in this game.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not too concerned with the defacement of the phone book, since noone uses those things anyway. It's not any worse than sticking an altoids tin to the booth

The person who finances the replacement of the phone books might feel differently. An altoids tin with a magnet leaves no trace, (other than the stains from when it inevitably rusts apart), while tearing pages apart is detectable. Small damage is still damage.

[+TotemLake]

I've seen 2 of these in the LA area.

 

Both were disabled within a few months from the book being replaced.

 

I'm not too concerned with the defacement of the phone book, since noone uses those things anyway. It's not any worse than sticking an altoids tin to the booth...

I use them and nothing irritates me more than to find the page I needed ripped out by some moron inconsiderate jerk person who didn't have too much concern about the defacement.

[knowschad]

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous discussion to me. I would NOT place a hide like that, but in regards to vandalism charges such, telephone booths and telephone books are like buggy whips today. If the cache actually removed information that MIGHT be important to somebody someday... OK... that may be worth rethinking. But the phone book has already been paid for by the Yellow Pages advertisements, the "land owner" and the phone company could care less if some coordinates have been written in the margins. This is a non-issue. Let's talk about important stuff! Sheesh!

[Clan Riffster]

Yeah, can we start bashing micros now, or should we hold off till page 3?

[+TotemLake]

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous discussion to me. I would NOT place a hide like that, but in regards to vandalism charges such, telephone booths and telephone books are like buggy whips today. If the cache actually removed information that MIGHT be important to somebody someday... OK... that may be worth rethinking. But the phone book has already been paid for by the Yellow Pages advertisements, the "land owner" and the phone company could care less if some coordinates have been written in the margins. This is a non-issue. Let's talk about important stuff! Sheesh!

So it's ok to tag your fence considering it is already paid for? (That's rhetorical but it is the same line of thinking from a different perspective.) Buggy whips are still in use today too. So your analogy proves my point the item is still usable.

[knowschad]

So it's ok to tag your fence considering it is already paid for? (That's rhetorical but it is the same line of thinking from a different perspective.) Buggy whips are still in use today too. So your analogy proves my point the item is still usable.

 

"Tag a fence"? Sorry, but I don't understand that. What do you mean?

 

Buggy whips still in use? Sure. So are flintlock pistols. What is your point? My point is to stop whining about the tiny stuff... we've got more important things to think about than some little scribble in a phone book in a phone booth. If the thing is still THERE is already a miracle.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

From Urban Dictionary - Tag:

 

Tag; a personal signature, usually vandalism with spraypaint, but can be any graffitti.

 

 

 

 

michelle

[Mr.Yuck]

Since the cache is now archived, I guess the reviewers saw it as a guidelines violation, too.

 

C'mon. Am I the only one who wants a linky?

[+russellvt]

So it's ok to tag your fence considering it is already paid for? (That's rhetorical but it is the same line of thinking from a different perspective.) Buggy whips are still in use today too. So your analogy proves my point the item is still usable.

 

"Tag a fence"? Sorry, but I don't understand that. What do you mean?

 

Buggy whips still in use? Sure. So are flintlock pistols. What is your point? My point is to stop whining about the tiny stuff... we've got more important things to think about than some little scribble in a phone book in a phone booth. If the thing is still THERE is already a miracle.

 

I think the less-veiled point was basically, "just because it's someone else's property which you (general "you") do not value, it's ok. Were someone to instead use something more personal (such as your fence) and 'mark it up', then that would be different."

 

And, BTW... ever want to see a lot of buggy whips... visit the mid-west and surrounding areas.

 

Point being: I (along with the OP (?) and a few others) seem to feel that simply defacing or changing other folks' property or even the appearance of someone else's property for the sake of the game is crossing a boundary. As I think the scouts say, a bit paraphrased... "Leave no trace except footprints, take nothing but photographs"

 

And, not to flame (not really the intention), if it's not important to you, why are you coming in here telling people to stop talking about it, then? (yeah, yeah, yeah... I've read enough of the forums to realize that's pretty much a rhetorical question though, thanks... *smirk*)

 

Now on to bigger/better things... where's the link and when do we start flaming micros? (as others have said... *laugh*)

[+SimbaJamey]

Since the cache is now archived, I guess the reviewers saw it as a guidelines violation, too.

 

C'mon. Am I the only one who wants a linky?

 

Either that or the next years phone book came out and the cache got recycled

Edited May 31, 2008 by SimbaJamey

[+FamilyDNA]

Since the cache is now archived, I guess the reviewers saw it as a guidelines violation, too.

 

C'mon. Am I the only one who wants a linky?

Check the OP's recent finds.

[+CentralCArn]

If you think the distance for the owner breaks the guidelines, I disagree: Maintainable distances will vary from cacher to cacher.

 

If you think the fact that the phone book was defaced in order to create the cache, I might agree: it depends on how the log is attached & if it makes that page unusable. Of course, people have been known to tear out entire pages from phone books... (Which isn't really an excuse, but...)

 

If you think the guidelines are being broken in some other way, you have not specified.

 

Warning: Insufficient Input!

 

I agree that the distance isn't an issue. Guess I just threw that in since I had taken the trouble to look at his previous hides.

 

What bothered me the most was the glued in log covering a good portion of the listings on that page. Also the log was clearly identified as a "Geocache Log." Maybe if it was only taped at the top to allow access to the listings, I would not have felt the need to post or if it had been on the inside cover.

 

I was quite suprised to find the cache archived about four hours after the OP. I honestly wasn't intending that, but I guess I would have to say I agree with the decision. Will have to see about stopping by to remove the log if possible next time I am in the area.

 

And to save some work for somebody here is the link: Got Gas?

[+Team Black-Cat]

...And the cache cops win another one. Well done.

[+Ambrosia]

...And the cache cops win another one. Well done.

Either the cache fits into the guidelines or it doesn't. We shouldn't go sneaking around trying to hide caches from Groundspeak that we know shouldn't be listed.

[+blb9556]

Thats not a cache to me at all. Just putting a log in a phone book? A cache is supposed to be a container.

[Clan Riffster]

A cache is supposed to be a container.

Yeah, I thought that too, but that's a battle you won't win.

[Mr.Yuck]

Since the cache is now archived, I guess the reviewers saw it as a guidelines violation, too.

 

C'mon. Am I the only one who wants a linky?

Check the OP's recent finds.

 

Too much work!! I like my drama with just a single mouse click.

 

That's OK though, post # 38 is good enough.

[+russellvt]

C'mon. Am I the only one who wants a linky?

Check the OP's recent finds.

Too much work!! I like my drama with just a single mouse click.

Yeah, but you missed the obligatory smiley, too... *laugh*

 

[Mushtang]

While looking for (and not finding) a cache on a phone booth once I thought this was the hide method used. I tried looking up the page that the cache hiders name would have been on, I tried looking up the page that the cache name was on, and several other pages.

 

I found out later there was a flat magnet on the back of the booth and the log was behind it.

 

But I thought the log inside the phone book was a great idea, and meant to come home from that trip and hide one. The name would be "Call Me" and the log would be on whatever page Mushtang would be listed.

 

Unfortunately I forgot about it - maybe now I'll go hide one like it.

[+The Leprechauns]

I found several of this style in North Carolina a few years ago. I don't recall that any of the logs interfered with the phone book's use, and the outside of the phone book wasn't marked. I logged my finds and didn't report the caches. Still, I remember being a bit bothered that the phone book was being used that way, probably without permission.

 

The other difference is that those North Carolina caches were hidden before Groundspeak adopted its current definition of what constitutes a "container." The California cache, published March 2 of this year, isn't grandfathered.

[+JohnnyVegas]

...And the cache cops win another one. Well done.

Ah yes, and you can also be a cache cop

[+tozainamboku]

...And the cache cops win another one. Well done.

Either the cache fits into the guidelines or it doesn't. We shouldn't go sneaking around trying to hide caches from Groundspeak that we know shouldn't be listed.

I consider the guideline not to deface property one of the most important guidelines we have. If property owners and land managers have the impression that geocachers are taggers or other sorts of vandals you will see all sorts of legal restrictions placed on this activity. But get real, a phone book in a public phone booth is not exactly placed there by the owner (the phone company) with the expectation that people won't write in it or tear out pages. A geocache log placed in a phone book is not defacing it anymore than the normal wear or tear it gets. These books usually get stolen pretty regularly too. The speculation here was that the CO may have taking his own phone book and placed it in the booth. There is no way to know if he defaced someone elses property or his own. The cache cops ought to worry about guidelines violations that would result in a damage to the our ability to geocache than to complain about every minor technical violation especially where the may not even be a violation.

 

I found several of this style in North Carolina a few years ago. I don't recall that any of the logs interfered with the phone book's use, and the outside of the phone book wasn't marked. I logged my finds and didn't report the caches. Still, I remember being a bit bothered that the phone book was being used that way, probably without permission.

 

The other difference is that those North Carolina caches were hidden before Groundspeak adopted its current definition of what constitutes a "container." The California cache, published March 2 of this year, isn't grandfathered.

I am not aware of a change in the definition of a container. Are magnetic log sheet on a guardrail or metal box no longer allowed? In any case there was a container here - the phone book. And if that is not good enough then the phone booth was the container.

[+TotemLake]

...And the cache cops win another one. Well done.

Either the cache fits into the guidelines or it doesn't. We shouldn't go sneaking around trying to hide caches from Groundspeak that we know shouldn't be listed.

I consider the guideline not to deface property one of the most important guidelines we have. If property owners and land managers have the impression that geocachers are taggers or other sorts of vandals you will see all sorts of legal restrictions placed on this activity. But get real, a phone book in a public phone booth is not exactly placed there by the owner (the phone company) with the expectation that people won't write in it or tear out pages. A geocache log placed in a phone book is not defacing it anymore than the normal wear or tear it gets. These books usually get stolen pretty regularly too. The speculation here was that the CO may have taking his own phone book and placed it in the booth. There is no way to know if he defaced someone elses property or his own. The cache cops ought to worry about guidelines violations that would result in a damage to the our ability to geocache than to complain about every minor technical violation especially where the may not even be a violation.

 

I found several of this style in North Carolina a few years ago. I don't recall that any of the logs interfered with the phone book's use, and the outside of the phone book wasn't marked. I logged my finds and didn't report the caches. Still, I remember being a bit bothered that the phone book was being used that way, probably without permission.

 

The other difference is that those North Carolina caches were hidden before Groundspeak adopted its current definition of what constitutes a "container." The California cache, published March 2 of this year, isn't grandfathered.

I am not aware of a change in the definition of a container. Are magnetic log sheet on a guardrail or metal box no longer allowed? In any case there was a container here - the phone book. And if that is not good enough then the phone booth was the container.

Just like others, you ignored one significant factor:

 

The hint was something like " 'X' marks the spot." The second part of the hint gave a large number. As soon as we pulled up to the phone booth, I spotted a fairly large X marked on the bottom of the phone book hanging in the phone booth

 

But I'm going to add something else here.

 

Get real with the fact it is private property. Ripping pages out is only one facet of the defacement. There is an expectation it remains usable and aesthetic for everybody. You know as well as I do, as soon as tagging starts on one object, it begins to grow as others see it as "OK to do". Where do we as players stop and realize crossing that line is not responsible playmanship? Just because "others do it" doesn't make it right or good or OK to do. Wrong is wrong and it should be continued to be thought of that way instead of looking the other way.

[+russellvt]

But get real, a phone book in a public phone booth is not exactly placed there by the owner (the phone company) with the expectation that people won't write in it or tear out pages. A geocache log placed in a phone book is not defacing it anymore than the normal wear or tear it gets. These books usually get stolen pretty regularly too. The speculation here was that the CO may have taking his own phone book and placed it in the booth. There is no way to know if he defaced someone elses property or his own. The cache cops ought to worry about guidelines violations that would result in a damage to the our ability to geocache than to complain about every minor technical violation especially where the may not even be a violation.

 

The problem here is the perception that the cache owner may have defaced the box in-order to make the hide... all it's going to take is a few people defacing someone else's property (or the appearance or perception there-of) to start causing more legal ruckus for this sport we all enjoy. Therefore, as responsible cachers, we should strive to always act in/with the best integrity for our hides so-as to not possibly cause some level of ire in non-participants... this would include, I think, refraining from hides in any area where someone might wrongly assume we had damaged an area to make our hide(s), or that the effect of cachers coming to the area to claim the find might adversely impact the area. Hence, we have the regulations.

 

Also, I beg to differ on the idea that the phone company would place a phone book simply for others to use it as scratch paper or to tear out sheets at whim... that's hardly the intent. It's really placed there for the convenience of everyone, not just as scratch paper. Unfortunately, I agree that our culture has sadly become such that many people seem to no longer think that such defacement(s) would be out-of-line. Just because it has been known to occur doesn't mean that we should knowingly contribute to it.

[+wimseyguy]

Unique cache-nah-seen at least 15-20 like this.

Bad for the game-the X tagging on the phone booth is defacement, and not a good idea. The addition of a piece of blank paper into the phone book for a log sheet, no harm there, and kinda clever IMO.