Jump to content

Unique Cache or Bad for the Game?


Recommended Posts

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.

Well, obviously Groundspeak disagrees with your calling the phone book or the phone booth a "container." See the archive log.

 

A container is something that "contains" the log. As in, "encloses." Every physical cache needs a container.

 

A magnet that you write on that gets changed when it is full is not a container. A magnetic sheet that covers write-in-the-rain paper is a container.

Link to comment

I had to go look for myself to see if it was really archived. All I can say is,"Are you happy now?"

If it was my cache, I'd be pissed. So now what is a cache supposed to be if that isn't a container either? Now all caches that are on the back of magentic sheets with the log sheet glued to them should be archived along with all the ones that look like a lost dog named GEO sign that has a pull out sheet behind it. Archive them too.

Link to comment

I had to go look for myself to see if it was really archived. All I can say is,"Are you happy now?"

If it was my cache, I'd be pissed. So now what is a cache supposed to be if that isn't a container either? Now all caches that are on the back of magentic sheets with the log sheet glued to them should be archived along with all the ones that look like a lost dog named GEO sign that has a pull out sheet behind it. Archive them too.

Yah I can see that happening. Having my cache archived for not following the guidelines would tick me off too. (not that I would set myself up for that kind of disappointment) :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Really, if you think about it, how many caches out there follow the guide lines 100%. But we can always throw in that they are just guidelines and not rules. :rolleyes:

I think the archival stemmed from two issues:

1. It wasn't an approved container. That's a refinement of what caches were meant to be according to this listing service.

2. A possible perception of vandalism reviewed and approved by Groundspeak. That's a liability issue and makes it the only action Groundspeak could take once the revelation was made.

 

There are dummer things done with caches which cause a huge issue such as bombsquad responses and perceived security breaches.

 

I'll submit when we hide a cache, we need to be sure we are hiding it responsibly. To paraphrase a quote for these irresponsible hides: Great idea, wrong implementation.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

I want to set one up like that but I'm going to make sure that I use my own phone book so that I don't deface anything. :rolleyes: You guys crack me up at times. Wow.

 

They crack me up too. It's as if they're dancing monkeys or something, just for my amusement. :wub:

 

Seriously though, I wouldn't doubt the guy did use his own phone book. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he did. But it's the perception. Ah, no sense in me saying the same thing, see this post

 

I also noted (as I believe the 2nd to last finder did), that this cache was pretty much totally impossible without using the hint. What's up with that? I may have seen something like that once before in 5 years of geocaching. Anyone else find that strange, or is it just me? :)

Link to comment

I want to set one up like that but I'm going to make sure that I use my own phone book so that I don't deface anything. :rolleyes: You guys crack me up at times. Wow.

 

They crack me up too. It's as if they're dancing monkeys or something, just for my amusement. :)

 

Seriously though, I wouldn't doubt the guy did use his own phone book. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he did. But it's the perception. Ah, no sense in me saying the same thing, see this post

 

I also noted (as I believe the 2nd to last finder did), that this cache was pretty much totally impossible without using the hint. What's up with that? I may have seen something like that once before in 5 years of geocaching. Anyone else find that strange, or is it just me? :wub:

Did you really leave that door open? :D

Link to comment

I want to set one up like that but I'm going to make sure that I use my own phone book so that I don't deface anything. :D You guys crack me up at times. Wow.

 

They crack me up too. It's as if they're dancing monkeys or something, just for my amusement. :)

 

Seriously though, I wouldn't doubt the guy did use his own phone book. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he did. But it's the perception. Ah, no sense in me saying the same thing, see this post

 

I also noted (as I believe the 2nd to last finder did), that this cache was pretty much totally impossible without using the hint. What's up with that? I may have seen something like that once before in 5 years of geocaching. Anyone else find that strange, or is it just me? :rolleyes:

Did you really leave that door open? :D

 

I doubt TL is looking at my own hides, but come to think of it, since the mouseover alt tag has been stripped from cache pages, I myself do have a cache that is currently almost impossible without the hint. OK, so forget what I said. :wub:

Link to comment

Yah I can see that happening. Having my cache archived for not following the guidelines would tick me off too.

 

*laugh*

 

That sounds like a serious contradiction, there... as-if you'd be mad for Groundspeak "catching" you willfully trying to skirt the terms of use or something (unless I'm not understanding that one quite right).

 

I know there are other knock-off sites that have a bit looser terms (I'll refrain from mentioning which ones, here) but I think it's in everyone's best interest that the #1 site for this sport (ie. GC), we always attempt to stay far away from anything remotely resembling a conflict with the guidelines (since most of them really are setup in a means that's in the best interest for the longevity of the sport, in my opinion). Personally, were one of my placed caches archived, I'd at least attempt to take it as a learning experience and try to not repeat the error.

Link to comment

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.

Well, obviously Groundspeak disagrees with your calling the phone book or the phone booth a "container." See the archive log.

 

A container is something that "contains" the log. As in, "encloses." Every physical cache needs a container.

 

A magnet that you write on that gets changed when it is full is not a container. A magnetic sheet that covers write-in-the-rain paper is a container.

Once again a new interpretation of the guideline by the powers that be that wasn't published. It isn't clear at all what the definition of a container is. I am sure that some here will argue that it is whatever TPTB say it is. I would still like to have a definition, since to me a phone booth or a phone book could be a container just as much as a bison tube or an magnetic sheet covering some write-in-the-rain paper.

 

Perhaps TPTB want to have a maximum size container. May a containter can't be anything big enough to fit a person into. Perhaps a container must be something put there by the cacher hider. Build your own phone booth - OK, but use an existing phone booth your in violation of the guideline. Of course I can buy my own phone book (just like I can buy tupperware) and leave it in a phone booth. Maybe a container should have some space in it that isn't completely taken up by the log. Coyote Red would be happy if the TPTB would use a definition that would make nanos that contain only a log scroll against the guidelines. And I guess that this new guideline only applies to the final cache with a log book, or else there are going to be a lot of multis that won't past muster anymore because the intermediate stages are just coordinates written on a magnet.

 

I have seen several cache that use creative logging methods. Jeremy can, if he wants, decide that this creativity no longer has a place on Geocaching.com. But he should publish this decision in the guidelines with a definition that is clear an understandable. There may be room for some discussion, I understand the desire to make the guidelines just that - flexible guidelines. I don't understand the reason that was given for this cache being archived under the present guidelines.

 

I don't remember the discussion when code word only caches were banned. I suspect that is was a unilateral decision like this one. I do know a lot of people were pissed off because they found that some code word caches allowed a cache to be placed in a location where it would be more difficult (although still possible) to place a cache without a log (e.g. underwater caches). I felt the code ban was reasonable because there were alternatives to place that same cache. Depending on how TPTB define container, it may still be possible to find creative places to hide nanos in phone booth or place a small envelop containing a log in a phone book. If there are alternatives I will be left simply to wonder what problem TPTB really had with this cache. It almost seems like they used the lack of container as an excuse for archiving a cache that might have been in violation of the no defacing guideline but since this couldn't be proved a new guideline (or at least a new interpretation of the guideline) was used to justify archiving this cache.

Link to comment

...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.

Thanks tozainamboku / Bigmouth

Link to comment

Hi Everyone, I didn't know that my phone book cache would cause such a stir. To set the story straight.

 

I did not provide my own phone book.

There is no booth.

There are two phones back2back.

They both have a phone book each.

That's why one was marked on it's edge with an X.

Not the cover.

Log 3/4inch by 9inch long.

Not covering any phone number or advertisement.

 

I visit Yosemite 2-3 times a year, and I did get

approval by geocaching first to place a cache so far

away from home. I had asked another cacher in the

area of the cache if they could maintain it for me.

They did accept. And that's why it was published.

 

The only reason I placed this type of cache is because

I've noticed other caches that were unique, that I liked.

Other caches with logs that said, great cache, great idea,

I'm going to put out a cache like this back home.

Other caches that had a log only, where they were pasted,

or scotch taped onto a sign you had to turn around or pull

out of it's holder.

 

I once received an award for the most LPHides. Every cache

I put out, you already knew it was going to be an LPH. Boy, did

everyone laugh at that event. But I got a great award. An ammo

box packed with alot of great stuff. My feelings were not hurt.

I have alot of 35mm containers. I'm gonna look for some

empty LPosts. LOL

 

Please accept my apologies for any wrong doings.

 

I like geocaching, And I don't want to be looked at as a defacer

of public or personal property. That's not me.

 

:) Sincerely, Bigmouth/John bigmouthcacher@gmail.com

 

GC19VEK

Cache is LOG only. No room for swag.

 

HINT: X marks the spot. Take a quarter away from $3.00. What do you have left? 275 --- Look for 275. You'll find the log there. Are you standing at the phone? You should be. smile.gif

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0c-7c3d14d22d15

Edited by bigmouth
Link to comment

Hi Everyone, I didn't know that my phone book cache would cause such a stir. To set the story straight...

Thanks for the explanation.

 

The problem here is that it doesn't fit the guidelines. Lots of caches don't... yours just got brought to the forum.

 

Once that happens the cache is toast - it will be picked apart and most likely archived. Very few caches can stand up to close scrutiny.

 

The vast majority of the caches that I have found violate some letter or spirit of the guidelines. Unless that violation is made public they live a long life.

 

Once a cache violation is brought out in public however, especially here in the forums, something has to be done. Groundspeak and the Reviewers have been put on notice about the problem, and once that happens they have to be seen to enforce the guidelines carefully and completely.

 

If another of your caches is outed for some real or perceived violation your best bet is to immediately temporarily disable it and work with your Reviewer to get your cache into compliance, else its future is dim.

Link to comment
I once received an award for the most LPHides. Every cache

I put out, you already knew it was going to be an LPH. Boy, did

everyone laugh at that event. But I got a great award. An ammo

box packed with alot of great stuff. My feelings were not hurt.

I have alot of 35mm containers. I'm gonna look for some

empty LPosts. LOL

 

If you once were given an award for placing so many lamp post hides that people already knew where it was going to be when you a published a new cache, I hope that this particular attempt at trying something new doesn't discourage you from trying other different and usual hides. While some might have a problem with certain aspects of it, the ingenuity shines brightly for me. Part of the fun of finding an urban cache (for many) is that it really could be anything.

 

I'm sure that the fact that they gave you an ammo box for a prize instead of a sack of film canisters wasn't lost on you. :)

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

The vast majority of the caches that I have found violate some letter or spirit of the guidelines. Unless that violation is made public they live a long life.

 

 

So true.

 

90% of caches violate some guideline or another. (certainly most often the 'permission' guideline, but i see a lot of buried caches and caches which deface property in some way)

 

I'm already accused of being the cache police by my geo-buddies, if i reported every one there would be no caches left in Los Angeles. :)

Edited by benh57
Link to comment

From the cache page.

 

Archiving per Admin instructions. No actual container present at location as required by the Guidelines. A piece of paper taped to a phone book is not a container.

 

So, just make it stage in a multi. Seriously.

 

Vandalism? :) :)

 

Let's see...Police will go out of their way to catch taggers. Now, call the department and tell them about the phone book with an "x" on it....let's see their reaction.

 

Are police allowed to laugh in civilians' faces? :)

 

There is a way to use your cache as a stage in a multi to meet all of the requirements. Do it that way. I think many cachers would enjoy the change of pace....

 

HHMMMM.......might have an idea......

Link to comment

How refreshing to have the owner of a hotly debated cache come on and provide a clear, reasonable, and calm response to the thread!

 

Personally, I have seen worse "defacement" of property, such as a local cacher who paints bug X's on trees and rocks to help orient searchers, or caches where public property has been written on with a Sharpie or had coords stamped into it. I have also seen many non-containers, like flat magnets with logsheets glued on the back, a tiny container holding two colored beads (you "log in" by emailing the CO the color of the beads), and once a ziplock bag stuffed into the end of the guardrail.

 

I think the cache was fine, and still don't know why anyone would have bothered to complain!

Link to comment
...and still don't know why anyone would have bothered to complain!

Because they thought it was defacement of property? Not only against this site's guidelines, but not good for the public image of geocaching?

 

Personally, I don't care for it on various levels. Just because someone colored outside the lines doesn't mean it's all good.

Link to comment
Personally, I have seen worse "defacement" of property

I think anyone who has played this game for more than 5 minutes has probably seen worse. :)

However, as a few have mentioned, it's not the degree of defacement that makes this cache a problem, it's the existence of defacement. If you think a small amount of vandalism is OK, then I would have to respectfully disagree.

 

Something taggers do around here as an alternative form of entertainment is create what they consider to be a clever looking signature using a Sharpie. Then they see how many different places they can "tag" with their signature, in one night. We're talking about something that's often about 2"x1", often placed in spots barely noticeable by the public. One guy likes the inner fender wells of automobiles. Unless you have a mirror on a stick, or you are real flexible, you'd never notice them. Pretty insignificant, eh? Would you feel that way if it were your car? Sure, we can blow this off saying "It's just a phone book", but in the long run, is that attitude good for the game? I cringe every time I read someone defending vandalous, (is that a word?), cache hides, and wonder if the person doing the defending has similar hides of their own.

Link to comment

Hi Everyone, I didn't know that my phone book cache would cause such a stir. To set the story straight...

Thanks for the explanation.

 

The problem here is that it doesn't fit the guidelines. Lots of caches don't... yours just got brought to the forum.

 

Once that happens the cache is toast - it will be picked apart and most likely archived. Very few caches can stand up to close scrutiny.

 

The vast majority of the caches that I have found violate some letter or spirit of the guidelines. Unless that violation is made public they live a long life.

 

Once a cache violation is brought out in public however, especially here in the forums, something has to be done. Groundspeak and the Reviewers have been put on notice about the problem, and once that happens they have to be seen to enforce the guidelines carefully and completely.

 

If another of your caches is outed for some real or perceived violation your best bet is to immediately temporarily disable it and work with your Reviewer to get your cache into compliance, else its future is dim.

Hi Bigmouth. Thanks for your PM to bring me back. You asked for my thoughts and I'm obliged to respond.

 

I'm going to echo TAR's comments here because it falls in line with my last post.

 

I also want to point at my first post to keep in mind the context of my following posts was based on responses to comments about not seeing a problem with the defacement, not that they were attributed to you or not. I like to think my comments stay consistant. If I erred in that consistency, then you have my apology for giving a different perception.

 

I for one don't want to kill creativity and at the risk of repeating myself; Great idea, wrong implementation. You got outed for it and Groundspeak had to respond to protect themselves. As someone else pointed out, not all caches adhere to 100% of the guidelines. So, down tthe road, it'll be someone else. Eventually, it could end up being me and I can end up with the firestorm of opinions including all the markwelled pointers of my own opinions and hypocracy tied to them. :)

 

So, my advise is to take it on the chin, learn from the experience, and move forward. That's my general philosophy on life, work, and play. Btw, anybody who can stand up to this kind of scrutiny and still step up to explain the situation in as calm a manner as you have, has my hat off to them.

 

Cheers!

TL

Link to comment

I doubt TL is looking at my own hides, but come to think of it, since the mouseover alt tag has been stripped from cache pages, I myself do have a cache that is currently almost impossible without the hint. OK, so forget what I said. :)

 

You're absolutely right, I was just taking a cheap poke at ya to try to lighten up the mood in here.

Link to comment

possible solution to bring back what seems to be an interesting hide (and avoid all the "no container" and "defacement" issues):

 

get your own phonebook (one that is out of date and up for recycling maybe?) glue half the pages together and hollow out a section of the middle to fit a container for the log (and secure it to the inside so it does not fall out.) with any needed permission granted, attatch the whole *container* to the phone booth/area and mark it with a geocaching sticker/logo on the cover.

 

no defacement. log is in a container (you could even make it large enough for small trades and trackables.) and the interesting placement is back. all within guidelines.

 

just some thoughts :)

Link to comment

The archive note says the cache was archived for lack of a container - not because of defacement.

 

The information given by the cache cop was not sufficient to prove that the CO defaced the phone book and even if he did, TPTB knew that plenty of people would laugh at them for thinking a piece of paper taped inside a phone both and perhaps and X drawn on the edge is really defacement. Of course some would argue that it leaves the perception that it's OK to deface property and therefore even in this case the cache should be archived least some actually modifies the phone.

 

The cache in question had a log sheet tape into the phone book. It allowed people to access the page to look up numbers. An X was drawn on the edge of the phone book - again it did not interfere with the intended use of the phone book. The company the owns the phone booth probably replaces the book at least once a year. They expect that over the course of the year the book will be written in and pages may be torn out. The defacement by the cache owner (if you can call it defacement) was less than would be expected in the normal use of the phone book. The argument that allowing any defacement would lead others to believe it is always ok to deface property to hide a cache or provide a logging method is problematic. First it assumes that geocachers are idiots. (I feel a warning from quiggle. I'm not calling geocachers idiots - I'm saying that one problem with the zero tolerance argument is that the people making the arguments are implying that at least some geocachers are idiots and would do real damage to property based on seen that some had written on a phone book :) ). Second, as has been pointed out by others, you'd have a large number of creative caches that should be archived because they technically violated some guideline. Guidelines are meant to be flexible and in most cases reviewers are allowed to make exceptions. This seems to be a case where one could argue that there wasn't defacement as the use of the phone book was not interfered with.

 

My question on the containerless issue has still not been addressed. I argue that by any dictionary definition of container both the phone book and the phone booth itself can be considered containers for this log. Yet TPTB archived the cache because it had no container. TPTB owe us their definition of container. Until they do, I am of the opinion that this cache should not have been archived.

Link to comment

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.

 

Hi Everyone, I didn't know that my phone book cache would cause such a stir. To set the story straight.

 

I did not provide my own phone book.

There is no booth.

There are two phones back2back.

They both have a phone book each.

That's why one was marked on it's edge with an X.

Not the cover.

Log 3/4inch by 9inch long.

Not covering any phone number or advertisement.

 

I visit Yosemite 2-3 times a year, and I did get

approval by geocaching first to place a cache so far

away from home. I had asked another cacher in the

area of the cache if they could maintain it for me.

They did accept. And that's why it was published.

 

The only reason I placed this type of cache is because

I've noticed other caches that were unique, that I liked.

Other caches with logs that said, great cache, great idea,

I'm going to put out a cache like this back home.

Other caches that had a log only, where they were pasted,

or scotch taped onto a sign you had to turn around or pull

out of it's holder.

 

I once received an award for the most LPHides. Every cache

I put out, you already knew it was going to be an LPH. Boy, did

everyone laugh at that event. But I got a great award. An ammo

box packed with alot of great stuff. My feelings were not hurt.

I have alot of 35mm containers. I'm gonna look for some

empty LPosts. LOL

 

Please accept my apologies for any wrong doings.

 

I like geocaching, And I don't want to be looked at as a defacer

of public or personal property. That's not me.

 

:) Sincerely, Bigmouth/John bigmouthcacher@gmail.com

 

GC19VEK

Cache is LOG only. No room for swag.

 

HINT: X marks the spot. Take a quarter away from $3.00. What do you have left? 275 --- Look for 275. You'll find the log there. Are you standing at the phone? You should be. :)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0c-7c3d14d22d15

Edited by bigmouth
Link to comment

The archive note says the cache was archived for lack of a container - not because of defacement.

 

The information given by the cache cop was not sufficient to prove that the CO defaced the phone book and even if he did, TPTB knew that plenty of people would laugh at them for thinking a piece of paper taped inside a phone both and perhaps and X drawn on the edge is really defacement. Of course some would argue that it leaves the perception that it's OK to deface property and therefore even in this case the cache should be archived least some actually modifies the phone.

I'd like to point out one thing, and this isn't directed at just you, but at anybody who stoops to call people names... when you stoop that low, you put yourself in a prime position for a swift kick. Just my 2 bits.

Link to comment

You know, the more I think about it...

 

If the issue was lack of container and not theoretical defacement of property, then what about those flat magnets with logsheets glued to the back? They are less container-ish than a whole phone book. Or what about those "Lost Dog" or "GPS for Sale" papers one sees on bulletin boards (where you have to sign the back)? The phone book hide might be old hat to someone from a big urban area, but here in the boonies, it would be called "creative" and would probably be well-received by all as a change of pace from those darn MKH's and all the Gladware.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak should add a pictorial reference list of acceptable cache containers to the guidelines? :)

Link to comment

The phone book attached to a pay phone is protected in such a way to keep the pages reasonably dry. As such, a log inside a phone book benefits from the same protection. Therefore, the phone book is a container just like any other weather resistant container.

 

If this cache is archived due to it not being a real container, every library book cache should be archived (and that would be a crying shame).

Link to comment

I agree with whistler on the fact that they should add a pictorial reference. I mean it would be a lot easier to follow the Guidelines if we all new exactly what they meant. :)

And it would be a whole lot easier to find the caches if we had pictures of exactly what we should look for :)

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I'm going to play devil's advocate here - if the problem lies with the defacement, then how do you justify night caches? (and don't throw stones - I LOVE them! Haven't placed one, but do enjoy the ones I've been on). The reflectors can be purchased on several sites linked from GC.com. :)

Link to comment

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.

 

Hi Everyone, I didn't know that my phone book cache would cause such a stir. To set the story straight.

 

I did not provide my own phone book.

There is no booth.

There are two phones back2back.

They both have a phone book each.

That's why one was marked on it's edge with an X.

Not the cover.

Log 3/4inch by 9inch long.

Not covering any phone number or advertisement.

 

I visit Yosemite 2-3 times a year, and I did get

approval by geocaching first to place a cache so far

away from home. I had asked another cacher in the

area of the cache if they could maintain it for me.

They did accept. And that's why it was published.

 

The only reason I placed this type of cache is because

I've noticed other caches that were unique, that I liked.

Other caches with logs that said, great cache, great idea,

I'm going to put out a cache like this back home.

Other caches that had a log only, where they were pasted,

or scotch taped onto a sign you had to turn around or pull

out of it's holder.

 

I once received an award for the most LPHides. Every cache

I put out, you already knew it was going to be an LPH. Boy, did

everyone laugh at that event. But I got a great award. An ammo

box packed with alot of great stuff. My feelings were not hurt.

I have alot of 35mm containers. I'm gonna look for some

empty LPosts. LOL

 

Please accept my apologies for any wrong doings.

 

I like geocaching, And I don't want to be looked at as a defacer

of public or personal property. That's not me.

 

:) Sincerely, Bigmouth/John bigmouthcacher@gmail.com

 

GC19VEK

Cache is LOG only. No room for swag.

 

HINT: X marks the spot. Take a quarter away from $3.00. What do you have left? 275 --- Look for 275. You'll find the log there. Are you standing at the phone? You should be. :)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0c-7c3d14d22d15

Link to comment

 

A container is something that "contains" the log. As in, "encloses." Every physical cache needs a container.

 

A magnet that you write on that gets changed when it is full is not a container. A magnetic sheet that covers write-in-the-rain paper is a container.

 

But what if the "write on" part of the magnetic sheet is facing inward, hence is covered by itself? Would that not "contain" the log? Is there a guideline that says the log must be separate of the container or must we interpret:

 

Traditional Caches

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

 

as strictly at least two pieces of equipment? As an example: presume that we have received in the mail an advertisement that is a single sheet folded. Is that not a piece of paper AND an advertisement?

Link to comment

WOW!!!

 

I am simply flabbergasted. Were you all hall monitors growing up? This sounds like an awesome cache and it is now ruined. I would absolutely love to come across a cache like this. You people live in a total different world than we do here. We don't consider writing in a phonebook as defacement. This is one of the functions of a public phonebook; you jot down notes, circle numbers, and write numbers in the margins. We consider graffiti on the wall to be defacement; we consider writing cuss words in the bathroom stalls as defacement. Heck, even painting Bill loves Sue on a water tower is defacement, but not marking an X on the edge of a phone book! I know the original poster didn't want to see the cache archived but it seems that some take joy in acting like big brother when it comes to other's caches.

 

 

Everyday I come to these forums it slowly sucks the enjoyment out of geocaching.

 

 

How can this not be considered a 'cache container' when there are library caches whose log is a blank book placed in the stacks?

Link to comment

[local "taggers" signing their name/sig to public places]

We're talking about something that's often about 2"x1", often placed in spots barely noticeable by the public. One guy likes the inner fender wells of automobiles. Unless you have a mirror on a stick, or you are real flexible, you'd never notice them.

Not to hijack this thread or anything in some weird direction, but I was struck with the wonderment of "how" you'd ever come to the knowledge of such a habit... *ponder* :)

Link to comment

The phone book attached to a pay phone is protected in such a way to keep the pages reasonably dry. As such, a log inside a phone book benefits from the same protection. Therefore, the phone book is a container just like any other weather resistant container.

 

If this cache is archived due to it not being a real container, every library book cache should be archived (and that would be a crying shame).

Lep gave some explanation of why it's not a container in post 52 (Maybe Keystone explained it to him) that didn't really clear it up for me. It's strange what is considered a container and what isn't, and that a phone book protected from the rain isn't.

Link to comment

WOW!!!

 

I am simply flabbergasted. Were you all hall monitors growing up? This sounds like an awesome cache and it is now ruined. I would absolutely love to come across a cache like this. You people live in a total different world than we do here. We don't consider writing in a phonebook as defacement. This is one of the functions of a public phonebook; you jot down notes, circle numbers, and write numbers in the margins. We consider graffiti on the wall to be defacement; we consider writing cuss words in the bathroom stalls as defacement. Heck, even painting Bill loves Sue on a water tower is defacement, but not marking an X on the edge of a phone book! I know the original poster didn't want to see the cache archived but it seems that some take joy in acting like big brother when it comes to other's caches.

 

 

Everyday I come to these forums it slowly sucks the enjoyment out of geocaching.

 

 

How can this not be considered a 'cache container' when there are library caches whose log is a blank book placed in the stacks?

That's the risk taken everytime an opinion is asked in here as you recently learned. Don't like it? You can pick Door 1, Door 2, or what's behind the curtain over there. :)

Link to comment

WOW!!!

 

I am simply flabbergasted. Were you all hall monitors growing up? This sounds like an awesome cache and it is now ruined. I would absolutely love to come across a cache like this. You people live in a total different world than we do here. We don't consider writing in a phonebook as defacement. This is one of the functions of a public phonebook; you jot down notes, circle numbers, and write numbers in the margins. We consider graffiti on the wall to be defacement; we consider writing cuss words in the bathroom stalls as defacement. Heck, even painting Bill loves Sue on a water tower is defacement, but not marking an X on the edge of a phone book! I know the original poster didn't want to see the cache archived but it seems that some take joy in acting like big brother when it comes to other's caches.

 

 

Everyday I come to these forums it slowly sucks the enjoyment out of geocaching.

 

 

How can this not be considered a 'cache container' when there are library caches whose log is a blank book placed in the stacks?

That's the risk taken everytime an opinion is asked in here as you recently learned. Don't like it? You can pick Door 1, Door 2, or what's behind the curtain over there. :)

 

It might be more like "The Gong Show".

 

 

michelle

Link to comment

WOW!!!

 

I am simply flabbergasted. Were you all hall monitors growing up? This sounds like an awesome cache and it is now ruined. I would absolutely love to come across a cache like this. You people live in a total different world than we do here. We don't consider writing in a phonebook as defacement. This is one of the functions of a public phonebook; you jot down notes, circle numbers, and write numbers in the margins. We consider graffiti on the wall to be defacement; we consider writing cuss words in the bathroom stalls as defacement. Heck, even painting Bill loves Sue on a water tower is defacement, but not marking an X on the edge of a phone book! I know the original poster didn't want to see the cache archived but it seems that some take joy in acting like big brother when it comes to other's caches.

 

 

Everyday I come to these forums it slowly sucks the enjoyment out of geocaching.

 

 

How can this not be considered a 'cache container' when there are library caches whose log is a blank book placed in the stacks?

That's the risk taken everytime an opinion is asked in here as you recently learned. Don't like it? You can pick Door 1, Door 2, or what's behind the curtain over there. :)

 

It might be more like "The Gong Show".

 

 

michelle

True, or even any of the talent shows now in place.

 

The truth is, not a single one of us is responsible for having the cache archived. We are solely repsonsible for expressing an opinion. It may not have been the OP's intent to have the cache archived, but once a perception of defacement is out in the open, Groundspeak HAS to make a decision to limit their liability. In our litigious society where any entity can be sued for the slightest of reasons, it is unfortunate some people can be so shortsighted they have to accuse their peers as being cache cops or hall monitors instead of realizing Groundspeak MADE that decision to cover their assets.

Link to comment

WOW!!!

 

I am simply flabbergasted. Were you all hall monitors growing up? This sounds like an awesome cache and it is now ruined. I would absolutely love to come across a cache like this. You people live in a total different world than we do here. We don't consider writing in a phonebook as defacement. This is one of the functions of a public phonebook; you jot down notes, circle numbers, and write numbers in the margins. We consider graffiti on the wall to be defacement; we consider writing cuss words in the bathroom stalls as defacement. Heck, even painting Bill loves Sue on a water tower is defacement, but not marking an X on the edge of a phone book! I know the original poster didn't want to see the cache archived but it seems that some take joy in acting like big brother when it comes to other's caches.

 

 

Everyday I come to these forums it slowly sucks the enjoyment out of geocaching.

 

 

How can this not be considered a 'cache container' when there are library caches whose log is a blank book placed in the stacks?

That's the risk taken everytime an opinion is asked in here as you recently learned. Don't like it? You can pick Door 1, Door 2, or what's behind the curtain over there. :)

 

It might be more like "The Gong Show".

 

 

michelle

True, or even any of the talent shows now in place.

 

The truth is, not a single one of us is responsible for having the cache archived. We are solely repsonsible for expressing an opinion. It may not have been the OP's intent to have the cache archived, but once a perception of defacement is out in the open, Groundspeak HAS to make a decision to limit their liability. In our litigious society where any entity can be sued for the slightest of reasons, it is unfortunate some people can be so shortsighted they have to accuse their peers as being cache cops or hall monitors instead of realizing Groundspeak MADE that decision to cover their assets.

 

This is true! It was just brought here to a geocaching forum for discussion. I'm sure no one here posted an SBA. The subtitle of the thread alone connotates a discussion. Jeesh. Anyways, I'd like to thank Bigmouth for coming to the forums, and informing most of the participants in the thread that he came to the forums via email. As I had said in my very first post to the thread, I didn't think this was a horrific guideline violation, and there's much worse out there snuck past the reviewers.

 

I'm still confused on the whole container thing though. I've found I believe two "sign the back of the magnet" type of caches, (as well as seeing that method used on many o' leg of a multi). Different case I know for the multi legs, but still, I wouldn't consider these a container.

Link to comment

The truth is, not a single one of us is responsible for having the cache archived. We are solely repsonsible for expressing an opinion. It may not have been the OP's intent to have the cache archived, but once a perception of defacement is out in the open, Groundspeak HAS to make a decision to limit their liability. In our litigious society where any entity can be sued for the slightest of reasons, it is unfortunate some people can be so shortsighted they have to accuse their peers as being cache cops or hall monitors instead of realizing Groundspeak MADE that decision to cover their assets.

 

It is also unfortunate that some are sucking the life out of this sport/game because they are behaving exactly like hall monitors. Did you not get spanked growing up when you tattle-told? Groundspeak made a decision due to this whistle blowing. And now the community misses out on a cache that some of us would view as a breath of fresh air admist the mass of micros placed out there.

 

Don't get me wrong .. I am against defacement as well .. real defacement. Heck I am so anal about it I get upset when people dog ear books at the library. But I don't blow the whistle so the authorities can get to the bottom of it.

 

Once again you all must live in a different world than we do here. I really have a hard time seeing the cache placer doing 10 -15 in Leavenworth due to placing this cache. I can picture it now ... sitting admist murderers and rapists, when questioned what he was in there for he has to admit it was for making a mark on a telephone book. PUH-LEASE.

Edited by themeecer
Link to comment

The truth is, not a single one of us is responsible for having the cache archived. We are solely repsonsible for expressing an opinion. It may not have been the OP's intent to have the cache archived, but once a perception of defacement is out in the open, Groundspeak HAS to make a decision to limit their liability. In our litigious society where any entity can be sued for the slightest of reasons, it is unfortunate some people can be so shortsighted they have to accuse their peers as being cache cops or hall monitors instead of realizing Groundspeak MADE that decision to cover their assets.

 

It is also unfortunate that some are sucking the life out of this sport/game because they are behaving exactly like hall monitors. Did you not get spanked growing up when you tattle-told? Groundspeak made a decision due to this whistle blowing. And now the community misses out on a cache that some of us would view as a breath of fresh air admist the mass of micros placed out there.

 

Don't get me wrong .. I am against defacement as well .. real defacement. Heck I am so anal about it I get upset when people dog ear books at the library. But I don't blow the whistle so the authorities can get to the bottom of it.

 

Once again you all must live in a different world than we do here. I really have a hard time seeing the cache placer doing 10 -15 in Leavenworth due to placing this cache. I can picture it now ... sitting admist murderers and rapists, when questioned what he was in there for he has to admit it was for making a mark on a telephone book. PUH-LEASE.

I will not be held responsible for sucking the life out of your enjoyment. You allow that to happen all on your own.

 

Further, there was no whistleblowing. It was a topic opened for discussion. The fact you and others want to oppress folks to open topics to discuss an issue if it even comes close to something you disagree with is a real problem.

Link to comment

The truth is, not a single one of us is responsible for having the cache archived. We are solely repsonsible for expressing an opinion. It may not have been the OP's intent to have the cache archived, but once a perception of defacement is out in the open, Groundspeak HAS to make a decision to limit their liability. In our litigious society where any entity can be sued for the slightest of reasons, it is unfortunate some people can be so shortsighted they have to accuse their peers as being cache cops or hall monitors instead of realizing Groundspeak MADE that decision to cover their assets.

 

Groundspeak made the decision to archive this cache. The explanation in the archive note is that there was no container. If the cache was archived for not having a container we deserve a better definition that the one Lep gave. I am failing to understand how the phone book would not be considered a container. In any case, having seen recently approved caches that use similar kinds of none traditional containers and/or logs, it looks like this is a new interpretation of the guidelines which may or may not have been conveyed to the local reviewers and certainly has not be made clear to the general caching community.

 

If the real reason was that the cache defaced some property, or gave the IMPRESSION that it defaced some property, the archive note should say this. Even it did, people are well within their rights to come to the forum and express an opinion that writing on a phone book is not defacing property. Phone books in public phones are used for scratch paper all the time and this is considered normal usage and not defacement. And while some one might not realize this and get the IMPRESSION that it's OK to deface something, using "it might give the IMPRESSION" as an argument for archiving caches may in the end cause more damage to geocaching by discouraging any attempt at creativity that a local CACHE COP (sorry that those words offend you) might report. While I agree that obvious violations should be reported (particularly if the cache might cause problem for those seeking it or may result in a local backlash against geocaching), I don't have much respect for the people who report something minor because it might give the IMPRESSION that something more serious is OK. Lots of great caches would have to be archived if we used this threshold for reporting problems.

 

Geocaching may have archived this to "limit their liability" (Is the phone company going to hold Groundspeak responsible and have them pay to replace the phone book? :)). Whatever the reason (and I'll have to take Nomex's word in the archive note that is was the lack of container and not the defacement of a phone book) my opinion is that Groundspeak made the wrong decision. My opinion is also that one should not report specific caches unless a violation is serious. I'm willing to allow that what you think is serious is different than what I think is serious. One could have started a thread as to whether writing on phone book is a violation of the guidelines without signaling out a specific cache. It is unfortunate that a cache was archive in order for us to have this debate.

Link to comment
Further, there was no whistleblowing. It was a topic opened for discussion. The fact you and others want to oppress folks to open topics to discuss an issue if it even comes close to something you disagree with is a real problem.
Let's be honest with ourselves.

 

I suspect that the OP's endgame WAS to have this cache archived. WHile he did not name the cache in question, he gave so much information that it was easily identified. The discussion was never about the issue, it was always about the specific cache.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Thank you tozainamboku, you illustrated my thoughts exactly. Also, I am not attacking TotemLake. I am just attacking this line of reasoning. In fact, after checking his profile I see he is my kind of person. TotemLake actually uses his digital camera when caching. I am amazed at caches that have 80+ logs and not a single picture taken. I try to take a picture at every cache I visit. Thank you TotemLake.

Link to comment

The truth is, not a single one of us is responsible for having the cache archived. We are solely repsonsible for expressing an opinion. It may not have been the OP's intent to have the cache archived, but once a perception of defacement is out in the open, Groundspeak HAS to make a decision to limit their liability. In our litigious society where any entity can be sued for the slightest of reasons, it is unfortunate some people can be so shortsighted they have to accuse their peers as being cache cops or hall monitors instead of realizing Groundspeak MADE that decision to cover their assets.

 

Groundspeak made the decision to archive this cache. The explanation in the archive note is that there was no container. If the cache was archived for not having a container we deserve a better definition that the one Lep gave. I am failing to understand how the phone book would not be considered a container. In any case, having seen recently approved caches that use similar kinds of none traditional containers and/or logs, it looks like this is a new interpretation of the guidelines which may or may not have been conveyed to the local reviewers and certainly has not be made clear to the general caching community.

 

If the real reason was that the cache defaced some property, or gave the IMPRESSION that it defaced some property, the archive note should say this. Even it did, people are well within their rights to come to the forum and express an opinion that writing on a phone book is not defacing property. Phone books in public phones are used for scratch paper all the time and this is considered normal usage and not defacement. And while some one might not realize this and get the IMPRESSION that it's OK to deface something, using "it might give the IMPRESSION" as an argument for archiving caches may in the end cause more damage to geocaching by discouraging any attempt at creativity that a local CACHE COP (sorry that those words offend you) might report. While I agree that obvious violations should be reported (particularly if the cache might cause problem for those seeking it or may result in a local backlash against geocaching), I don't have much respect for the people who report something minor because it might give the IMPRESSION that something more serious is OK. Lots of great caches would have to be archived if we used this threshold for reporting problems.

 

Geocaching may have archived this to "limit their liability" (Is the phone company going to hold Groundspeak responsible and have them pay to replace the phone book? :)). Whatever the reason (and I'll have to take Nomex's word in the archive note that is was the lack of container and not the defacement of a phone book) my opinion is that Groundspeak made the wrong decision. My opinion is also that one should not report specific caches unless a violation is serious. I'm willing to allow that what you think is serious is different than what I think is serious. One could have started a thread as to whether writing on phone book is a violation of the guidelines without signaling out a specific cache. It is unfortunate that a cache was archive in order for us to have this debate.

I honestly don't have a problem with opinions being expressed. They can be done in a way that encourages discussion without a negative impact on each other. My last few posts have been nothing more than pressing that point.

 

Each of us has a threshold on something we must own up to. Those thresholds are as varied as the opinions expressed here and in other threads.

 

For want of a better phrase than cache cop?

Try concerned player.

 

There are many others people can come up with. Our language provides that ability. The thesaurus can be put to great use.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...