Unacceptable Cache Hides - In Your Opinion

[+benh57]

IowaAdmin is way out of line. The guidelines are supposed to be uniform, everywhere. If an Iowa cacher appealed their archival, they would likely win with Groundspeak.

 

They would lose on the grounds of "lack of permission."

 

This is covered in the other thread, but Permission has nothing to do with it. IowaAdmin stated he was archiving all caches which even looked like electrical equipment, even those which have permission.

[Mr.Yuck]

IowaAdmin is way out of line. The guidelines are supposed to be uniform, everywhere. If an Iowa cacher appealed their archival, they would likely win with Groundspeak.

 

Really? Well take the advice from someone who has made one too many assumptions concerning guidelines and never say that things are supposed to be uniform. For example, not all countries have a cemetery placement permission requirement.

 

I could tell you one in particular but it would probably just open another can of worms.

 

Yeah, I did that once. Like when the two reviewers in my state were requiring explicit permission for cemetery caches for like two years, and I thought it was uniform. Funny, somehow, all of a sudden, they stopped doing that.

[+benh57]

IowaAdmin is way out of line. The guidelines are supposed to be uniform, everywhere. If an Iowa cacher appealed their archival, they would likely win with Groundspeak.

 

Really? Well take the advice from someone who has made one too many assumptions concerning guidelines and never say that things are supposed to be uniform. For example, not all countries have a cemetery placement permission requirement.

 

 

Well, there is actually a guideline that says you must have permission to place ANY cache in any location. Thus, differing location permission requirements are common. In some areas people 'assume' permission on public rights of way (such as cemeteries), which may or may not be valid. A reviewer asking for explicit permission is well within existing guidelines. In theory, a reviewer could ask for explicit permission for EVERY cache hide, and be well within the written guidelines.

 

On the other hand, there is no guideline at all of any kind which regulates what you cache container is or what it is placed on (as we are talking about). The only requirement is that it have a signable log in (or on, if its flat) it.

[+BlueDeuce]

IowaAdmin is way out of line. The guidelines are supposed to be uniform, everywhere. If an Iowa cacher appealed their archival, they would likely win with Groundspeak.

 

They would lose on the grounds of "lack of permission."

 

This is covered in the other thread, but Permission has nothing to do with it. IowaAdmin stated he was archiving all caches which even looked like electrical equipment, even those which have permission.

 

From the other thread...

 

"To clarify my posting from nearly three years ago... As you know, reviewing geocaches is a moving target. The guidelines and practices change over time."

 

...

 

"What I now do is in the case of electrical equipment caches is ask the cache owner if he/she has permission to place the cache where it is."

 

--------

 

Maybe I'm wrong (again) but it seems like a permission issue to me now.

Edited September 11, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+benh57]

 

From the other thread...

 

"To clarify my posting from nearly three years ago... As you know, reviewing geocaches is a moving target. The guidelines and practices change over time."

 

...

 

"What I now do is in the case of electrical equipment caches is ask the cache owner if he/she has permission to place the cache where it is."

 

--------

 

Maybe I'm wrong (again) but it seems like a permission issue to me now.

 

Yes, so it's no longer an issue. He's changed his policies to verify permission for certain hides which is fine. In this thread, we're talking about his old dicta, which was to archive any cache using a particular container or location. That's not ok.

[+BlueDeuce]

Yes, so it's no longer an issue. He's changed his policies to verify permission for certain hides which is fine. In this thread, we're talking about his old dicta, which was to archive any cache using a particular container or location. That's not ok.

 

Ah. Well, since I was the one to pull up an old, out-dated, no longer applicable situation I get to say it's time to move on and deal with more relevant current and on-topic issues.

 

If you want to address the previously archived caches please feel free to discuss that with the appropriate parties.

Edited September 11, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+flask]

 

IowaAdmin is way out of line. The guidelines are supposed to be uniform, everywhere. If an Iowa cacher appealed their archival, they would likely win with Groundspeak.

 

wrong answer but thanks for playing. there are a number of cases where state and local laws vary and the guidlelines will follow those.

 

would you prefer it if the guidelines simply used the strictest form everywhere in order to maintain uniformity, or would you prefer the guidelines to be the least restrictive that are possible in that locale?

[+benh57]

IowaAdmin is way out of line. The guidelines are supposed to be uniform, everywhere. If an Iowa cacher appealed their archival, they would likely win with Groundspeak.

wrong answer but thanks for playing. there are a number of cases where state and local laws vary and the guidlelines will follow those.

 

would you prefer it if the guidelines simply used the strictest form everywhere in order to maintain uniformity, or would you prefer the guidelines to be the least restrictive that are possible in that locale?

 

I think the disucssion has moved past where you're at in two threads.

 

I'm referring more to him denying a particular container type completely, even with permission.

 

There are certainly some regional variations, but those aren't going to include things like 'you can't hide any container which is blue'. And permission is already in the guidelines, as i've mentioned elsewhere, so local permission variations don't need to be in the guidelines.

[+flask]

IowaAdmin is way out of line. The guidelines are supposed to be uniform, everywhere. If an Iowa cacher appealed their archival, they would likely win with Groundspeak.

wrong answer but thanks for playing. there are a number of cases where state and local laws vary and the guidlelines will follow those.

 

would you prefer it if the guidelines simply used the strictest form everywhere in order to maintain uniformity, or would you prefer the guidelines to be the least restrictive that are possible in that locale?

 

I think the disucssion has moved past where you're at in two threads.

 

I'm referring more to him denying a particular container type completely, even with permission.

 

There are certainly some regional variations, but those aren't going to include things like 'you can't hide any container which is blue'. And permission is already in the guidelines, as i've mentioned elsewhere, so local permission variations don't need to be in the guidelines.

 

no, but local laws do. and local laws vary.

[+BlueDeuce]

There are certainly some regional variations, but those aren't going to include things like 'you can't hide any container which is blue'. And permission is already in the guidelines, as i've mentioned elsewhere, so local permission variations don't need to be in the guidelines.

 

Any issue with a cache can be addressed at appeals@geocaching.com. If you have an issue with blue caches not being published, take it there.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Yes, so it's no longer an issue. He's changed his policies to verify permission for certain hides which is fine. In this thread, we're talking about his old dicta, which was to archive any cache using a particular container or location. That's not ok.

 

Ah. Well, since I was the one to pull up an old, out-dated, no longer applicable situation I get to say it's time to move on and deal with more relevant current and on-topic issues.

 

If you want to address the previously archived caches please feel free to discuss that with the appropriate parties.

I apoligize to IowaAdmin and to the forum members. I read the OP and opined on it, even opened another thread on it, without noticing that it was old and resolved. Ooops.

[+fizzymagic]

Any issue with a cache can be addressed at appeals@geocaching.com. If you have an issue with blue caches not being published, take it there.

 

I have a friend who recently did exactly that. His cache listing was automatically sent there, as a matter of fact. His listing was quite clearly well within the guidelines and should have been approved. The listing was denied because it supposedly required "external software" to solve a puzzle. I verified myself that no external software was required by solving the puzzle without it.

 

He heard nothing for over a week, and then was told it was denied. No explanation.

 

My impression is that the appeals process is not working all that well.

[+DanOCan]

I'm not keen on caches that look like things that are supposed to be there and might encourage cachers to wrongly disassemble things just like it.

 

Yep, I'm with you on that one.

 

Examples I have seen:

 

-- Sprinkler heads

-- Security cameras

-- Bird houses

-- Electrical Boxes

 

I know I have opened at least half a dozen sprinkler heads that ended up being real and one electrical box which also was real. The bird house beside the one containing the cache had a nest (complete with eggs) underneath it which had fallen out when someone opened the wrong house. And, you can only imagine the trouble you can get in if that security camera you think contains the cache turns out to be real.

[+sbell111]

I'm not keen on caches that look like things that are supposed to be there and might encourage cachers to wrongly disassemble things just like it.

 

Yep, I'm with you on that one.

 

Examples I have seen:

 

-- Sprinkler heads

-- Security cameras

-- Bird houses

-- Electrical Boxes

 

I know I have opened at least half a dozen sprinkler heads that ended up being real and one electrical box which also was real. The bird house beside the one containing the cache had a nest (complete with eggs) underneath it which had fallen out when someone opened the wrong house. And, you can only imagine the trouble you can get in if that security camera you think contains the cache turns out to be real.

Interesting.

 

I've logged several springkler head caches, but have never damaged a real one.

I've never seen a fake security camera cache, but I'm sure that I would verify that it was fake before messing with it.

I've logged some bird house caches, but never bothered a real bird house looking for a cache.

I've found many caches in fake electrical boxes, but never felt the need to open a real one.

 

I'm not sure what this all means.

[+Zop]

I received an interesting post on my blog yesterday from a cacher who did not think placing a cache so close to an electrical box was such a good idea. I can completely see his point to a degree but on the other hand did not think of it as a major deal. There have in the past been other forum posts where people have voiced displeasure of using electrical boxes and such (real or fake) as cache hosts in any way.

 

My question to you is what do you feel is not acceptable as a cache hide and why? Maybe we can see some patterns of what people really do not like to look for when caching.

 

***Note this discussion does not have to partain to just electrical hosts...

 

-HHH

 

I see no problem with hides near electrical boxes or panels as long as they are placed with permission and are at least somewhat obvious enough to not invite tampering with the real thing.

 

I have seen many blank coverplate hides that you can even purchase from the various cache supply sites.

[+Zop]

Not exactly electrical box related, what really disturbed me was a hide I found placed by a local that was an AT&T phone junction box double-stick taped to a volunteer fire house nearby. When I found the box and noticed the wires just dangling from it I knew it was the hide but merely touching it caused it to fall from the wall bringing paint from the building with it. I was amazed that a cache like this was approved without permission by the department.

[+sbell111]

Not exactly electrical box related, what really disturbed me was a hide I found placed by a local that was an AT&T phone junction box double-stick taped to a volunteer fire house nearby. When I found the box and noticed the wires just dangling from it I knew it was the hide but merely touching it caused it to fall from the wall bringing paint from the building with it. I was amazed that a cache like this was approved without permission by the department.

Your post didn't show that the cache had no permission. Did you leave that information out? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?

[4wheelin_fool]

Any cache that I cannot find in 15 minutes or less is an unacceptable cache hide.

Edited September 13, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Zop]

 

Your post didn't show that the cache had no permission. Did you leave that information out? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Sorry, I ran into the capitan at the local Raley's and asked him.

 

I have known both parties for nearly 20 years.

[+sbell111]

I don't understand your post because I don't know what a capitan or raley's are. Nor do I understand who 'both parties' are. Aren't you one of the parties and the cache owner the other one? Who's the other party?

[+TeamCatalpa]

Leaving electricity out of the equation, and thinking back to the opening post, my least favorite cache I have found was a 35 mm. film can tucked down into the grass right up against a head stone. I love caching in cemeteries, but REALLY didn't like that the cache owner had put a stupid little film can right up against the grave like that, when there were plenty of trees and bushes off to the sides for a larger cache container and a much more polite sort of hide. It would be unacceptable in my book to be so close to the grave where there are other options.

 

In fact, that's pretty much my biggest objection to some of the cache owners in my area. Wasting a spot that would have been perfect for an ammo can or a good sized lock and lock on another stinking micro. The other day we crawled through a bunch of mosquitoes and scrambled through brush on a river bank, only to find a pill bottle with a bit of camo tape on it. Lame!

 

Magnetic boxes under a lamp-post skirt? In a Wallyworld parking lot? Lame.

 

Micros are ok if they take me somewhere special and there isn't a good spot for a regular cache.

 

I have found some fantastic caches, my favorite was a small that was hidden in a hollow tree. The only way to get it out was to find the string up above and pull it out. Really cool!

[+TeddyR]

My biggest gripe with a hide is when the cache is very close to a street of any type but no logical or LEGAL place to park.. unless you park a good half mile away and then wait up to 2 minutes at each cross walk to legally walk across the intersections..

 

I will hunt any type of cache, I am not particular. Just have an obvious and LEGAL place to park suggested on the cache page if the place to park is not next to the cache coordinates.

 

and if the cache is in a park help the out of towners with where to park-- don't just say Hanna's Shelter parking area-- give coordinates to where we can park. I have skipped caches when coords for parking were not given but just a name--

 

Next cache is probably a beformentioned electric box, nearly destroyed lamp skirt, or one in a culvert of all places.

[+BlueDeuce]

My biggest gripe with a hide is when the cache is very close to a street of any type but no logical or LEGAL place to park.. unless you park a good half mile away and then wait up to 2 minutes at each cross walk to legally walk across the intersections..

 

I will hunt any type of cache, I am not particular. Just have an obvious and LEGAL place to park suggested on the cache page if the place to park is not next to the cache coordinates.

 

and if the cache is in a park help the out of towners with where to park-- don't just say Hanna's Shelter parking area-- give coordinates to where we can park. I have skipped caches when coords for parking were not given but just a name--

 

Next cache is probably a beformentioned electric box, nearly destroyed lamp skirt, or one in a culvert of all places.

 

I guess I can understand a gripe against people not parking legally, but just because you have to walk a ways and use a crosswalk... nah, part of the hunt is the approach. Crosswalks and all.

[+TeddyR]

My biggest gripe with a hide is when the cache is very close to a street of any type but no logical or LEGAL place to park.. unless you park a good half mile away and then wait up to 2 minutes at each cross walk to legally walk across the intersections..

 

I will hunt any type of cache, I am not particular. Just have an obvious and LEGAL place to park suggested on the cache page if the place to park is not next to the cache coordinates.

 

and if the cache is in a park help the out of towners with where to park-- don't just say Hanna's Shelter parking area-- give coordinates to where we can park. I have skipped caches when coords for parking were not given but just a name--

 

Next cache is probably a beformentioned electric box, nearly destroyed lamp skirt, or one in a culvert of all places.

 

I guess I can understand a gripe against people not parking legally, but just because you have to walk a ways and use a crosswalk... nah, part of the hunt is the approach. Crosswalks and all.

 

The good thing is this thing is just a GAME and we can play as we want to..

[+BlueDeuce]

The good thing is this thing is just a GAME and we can play as we want to..

 

Yep.

[Clan Riffster]

Back to the original question: What caches are unacceptable to me.

Any cache that requires the seeker to break the law.

The most common of these are those caches hidden where a person must trespass, but there are other statutes that come to mind as well.

This irks me even more than minor guideline violations.

[+Wild Thing 73]

There are not any unacceptable cache placements if the cache has been published....only an opinion. Happy trails.

[Clan Riffster]

I should include the caveat that I have seen many caches discussed in these forums that required the seeker to commit the criminal offense of trespassing. In each case, these were published caches. Naturally, in each case, the hider did not inform the reviewer that breaking the law would be necessary in order to sign the log. These are the published caches that I would find unacceptable.

[+sbell111]

Back to the original question: What caches are unacceptable to me.

Any cache that requires the seeker to break the law.

The most common of these are those caches hidden where a person must trespass, but there are other statutes that come to mind as well.

This irks me even more than minor guideline violations.

I should include the caveat that I have seen many caches discussed in these forums that required the seeker to commit the criminal offense of trespassing. In each case, these were published caches. Naturally, in each case, the hider did not inform the reviewer that breaking the law would be necessary in order to sign the log. These are the published caches that I would find unacceptable.

No cache requires you to break the law.

Edited September 14, 2008 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

True. You would only need to break the law if you actually wanted to find the cache. If I found myself at such a cache, I would simply walk away. Apparently, (according to what I've seen in these forums), other folks would go for the find, which is their choice, so long as they are willing to accept the potential consequences of their actions. With that in mind, allow me to edit what I submitted earlier:

I have seen many caches discussed in these forums that required the seeker to commit the criminal offense of trespassing in order to actually find the cache.

These remain unacceptable to me, even though they are published.

[+sbell111]

In all the time that I've played this game, I've seen exactly one that would require trespassing to make the find. It was reported to the reviewer and promptly shut down.

[Clan Riffster]

I think that's the best course of action. If I should ever stumble across a cache that would require me to trespass in order to claim a find, I would follow suit, and report it to our reviewers. I have no doubt that, once the facts are in their hands, the offending cache would be taken care of.

[+Zop]

I don't understand your post because I don't know what a capitan or raley's are. Nor do I understand who 'both parties' are. Aren't you one of the parties and the cache owner the other one? Who's the other party?

 

Ok.. Sorry - I can understand if you were just pointing out that I misspelled "Captain" I trust you know what a Captain is? Typically a Fire Captain is the supervisor of the firefighters assigned to a specific station and shift.

 

I can understand you not knowing what a "Raley's" is as this is a global forum. Raley's is a grocery chain which has a store within a couple of miles from the fire station that had a cache physically attached to the building by Party (a) without permission of party (

 

Party (a) = the placer of the offending cache.

Party ( = Fire Captain

 

Parties = both (a) and ( above who I refuse to identify as to not make this post a personal attack.

 

In a nutshell, my reply to the OP's post is in reference to the OP's subject of an unacceptable hide. Clear enough?

 

Get it now?

[+Zop]

 

I have found some fantastic caches, my favorite was a small that was hidden in a hollow tree. The only way to get it out was to find the string up above and pull it out. Really cool!

 

Something tells me you would LOVE this one! http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...86-13774320258a

Ichabod Crane's Nightmare (a.k.a. The Black Hole) GCJ0KY

Edited September 14, 2008 by Zop

[+sbell111]

If you've known the placer of the cache forever, why didn't you just ask him?

Edited September 14, 2008 by sbell111

[+TotemLake]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Photo gratis Ventura_Kids.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't understand your post because I don't know what a capitan or raley's are. Nor do I understand who 'both parties' are. Aren't you one of the parties and the cache owner the other one? Who's the other party?

 

Ok.. Sorry - I can understand if you were just pointing out that I misspelled "Captain" I trust you know what a Captain is? Typically a Fire Captain is the supervisor of the firefighters assigned to a specific station and shift.

 

I can understand you not knowing what a "Raley's" is as this is a global forum. Raley's is a grocery chain which has a store within a couple of miles from the fire station that had a cache physically attached to the building by Party (a) without permission of party (

 

Party (a) = the placer of the offending cache.

Party ( = Fire Captain

 

Parties = both (a) and ( above who I refuse to identify as to not make this post a personal attack.

 

In a nutshell, my reply to the OP's post is in reference to the OP's subject of an unacceptable hide. Clear enough?

 

Get it now?

 

I get it, and I agree totally with you, unacceptable. Except when you try to type "Party B" using the format you are with parenthesis, you end up typing a smiley face in place of "B". Happened to me once too.

[+chuckwagon101]

Any cache that I cannot find in 15 minutes or less is an unacceptable cache hide.

 

FIFTEEN MINUTES??!!!!!!!!

 

That's long enough for SQUATTER'S RIGHTS!!!

 

A cursory glance is all I need to spot the Big Pile Of Sticks.........or not!!

[+Renegade Knight]

...In theory, a reviewer could ask for explicit permission for EVERY cache hide, and be well within the written guidelines. ...

 

Please define both explicit permission and acceptable proof of the same. Thanks.

[+Sioneva]

Scanning through caches around Omaha, I came across one which had this as a hint: A tight squeeze, one piece of trash helps hide the cache!

 

I am not inspired to go find this cache. Go do some CITO, maybe.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Back to the original question: What caches are unacceptable to me.

Any cache that requires the seeker to break the law.

The most common of these are those caches hidden where a person must trespass, but there are other statutes that come to mind as well.

This irks me even more than minor guideline violations.

I agree with you one hundred percent! In such cases, I always choose to abandon the hunt rather than to trespass. On the other hand, it is also true that the number of such "trespassing needed" caches that I have encountered is very low, particularly in this area (MD, PA, NoVA), and I can count on one or two hands the total number of cache hunts I have chosen to abandon due to likely or glaringly-obvious trespassing issues, and strangely enough, most of them were in SW Michigan, in the Kalamazoo area, and not in this area.

[+Renegade Knight]

Not exactly electrical box related, what really disturbed me was a hide I found placed by a local that was an AT&T phone junction box double-stick taped to a volunteer fire house nearby. When I found the box and noticed the wires just dangling from it I knew it was the hide but merely touching it caused it to fall from the wall bringing paint from the building with it. I was amazed that a cache like this was approved without permission by the department.

 

I know a similar hide hidden by one of the members of the department. Go figure.

[+Zop]

I know a similar hide hidden by one of the members of the department. Go figure.

 

Sure! but that would obviously be with the knowledge and permission of the department right?

And placed in such a way that it doesn't damage the building?

[+Zop]

I don't understand your post because I don't know what a capitan or raley's are. Nor do I understand who 'both parties' are. Aren't you one of the parties and the cache owner the other one? Who's the other party?

 

Ok.. Sorry - I can understand if you were just pointing out that I misspelled "Captain" I trust you know what a Captain is? Typically a Fire Captain is the supervisor of the firefighters assigned to a specific station and shift.

 

I can understand you not knowing what a "Raley's" is as this is a global forum. Raley's is a grocery chain which has a store within a couple of miles from the fire station that had a cache physically attached to the building by Party (a) without permission of party (

 

Party (a) = the placer of the offending cache.

Party ( = Fire Captain

 

Parties = both (a) and ( above who I refuse to identify as to not make this post a personal attack.

 

In a nutshell, my reply to the OP's post is in reference to the OP's subject of an unacceptable hide. Clear enough?

 

Get it now?

 

I get it, and I agree totally with you, unacceptable. Except when you try to type "Party B" using the format you are with parenthesis, you end up typing a smiley face in place of "B". Happened to me once too.

 

Ok.. That's funny right there!

[+sbell111]

I know a similar hide hidden by one of the members of the department. Go figure.

 

Sure! but that would obviously be with the knowledge and permission of the department right?

And placed in such a way that it doesn't damage the building?

To both questions, 'not necessarily'.

[+Buggheart]

The only caches I have had a problem with are those that are placed too high for me to reach. I am only 5' tall and have found a few where the comments indicate that they are placed high up or that a previous finder had problems reaching it and had to come back with someone tall. That kind of bums me out so I have to avoid those or drag my anti-caching husband with me as my team is comprised of short women.

[+KerBear]

The only caches I have had a problem with are those that are placed too high for me to reach. I am only 5' tall and have found a few where the comments indicate that they are placed high up or that a previous finder had problems reaching it and had to come back with someone tall. That kind of bums me out so I have to avoid those or drag my anti-caching husband with me as my team is comprised of short women.

 

I agree 100% with you. I have to cache with tall friends for those types of hides. I've had no complaints on my hydrant hide since kf4oox hasn't found it yet!!

[Mr.Yuck]

The only caches I have had a problem with are those that are placed too high for me to reach. I am only 5' tall and have found a few where the comments indicate that they are placed high up or that a previous finder had problems reaching it and had to come back with someone tall. That kind of bums me out so I have to avoid those or drag my anti-caching husband with me as my team is comprised of short women.

 

Now that's interesting. I have an anti-caching wife, but I never heard of an anti-caching husband. Just don't be logging those high caches as a find if you can "see" them but didn't sign the log, or the Geocaching Police will come and take you away. Then your husband will be really mad.

[lovetocachewithkids]

I made a cache inside a sprinkler head, and thought it was a clever idea, but then people started posting here that I was encouraging unnecessary digging around and disrupting the area. I guess I saw the point, I knew it was hidden there, but who would say nobody is going to pull up a real sprinkler? (i still kept it there, people like it)

[+Rockin Roddy]

I made a cache inside a sprinkler head, and thought it was a clever idea, but then people started posting here that I was encouraging unnecessary digging around and disrupting the area. I guess I saw the point, I knew it was hidden there, but who would say nobody is going to pull up a real sprinkler? (i still kept it there, people like it)

 

In other words, you know it is a problematic cache, yet you decided to leave it because "people like it"? Was the sprinkler head yours? Do you have permission to place the cache in it's location? Aren't you a tad worried someone will eventually destroy a real sprinkler or something else? Seems like a bad idea to me....

 

Would the owner of the property also "like it"? This should be the first question a cache hider asks him/herself.