Unacceptable Cache Hides - In Your Opinion

[+TrailGators]

For the purpose of this thread, I'll operate under the assumption that the OP is wondering what kinds of hides we, as a team account, refuse to hide, and what kind of caches we, as individual members of a team account, refuse to hunt.

Oh, good one! I like what you've done here. Allow me to chime in with mine too.

 

I totally agree with Clan Riffster's posts.

 

As for what I refuse to hide... I have taken pride in hiding caches that I think have more to them than just a cache for the sake of there being a cache, so I won't go put a cache of any size in a place that doesn't have one just because I have a container and the place is available. There has to be more to it for me to hide one. I've gotten an award from the GGA for one of my caches, and I've gotten lots of good logs and in person praises on the rest. My one LPC was hidden back when I'd hidden a few at the center of some Zip codes, and that was the closest place, but even that one had something more to it than mearly another smiley for someone. These standards I hold only to myself.

 

As for what I refuse to hunt, nothing within the guidelines. Just because I hold myself to high standards in my hides doesn't mean that I demand, or expect, the same from anyone else. This is easy to do since I've enjoyed (to some degree) every cache I've found so far. I'm able to honestly be grateful for every cache hidden in which I've tried to find. The ones I can't hunt because of time, weather, etc. are perfectly acceptable on another day when I do have the time, or better weather, or I'm dressed for the hunt, etc. So far I haven't found a cache that I knew was hidden against the guidelines. However, if I drive up to a cache and it's obviously inside a fenced off area with No Trespassing signs, I'll skip it, and probably report it as questionable.

I actually agree with this Mushtang and it sounds like we like the same kinds of caches. But I don't think that was the topic that the OP intended. As RK pointed out the rubber hits the road at the fringes of the guidelines. These areas are all about interpretation and opinion. We all have different opinions including the reviewers. Even permission which should be crystal clear is up for debate. I thought Johhnygeo's best point was 'I don’t know of any power utilities or municipalities that would give permission to hide a game-piece in or on their electrical equipment. Just would not happen.' As we all know it is happening, but does the 'frisbee rule' apply here? I don't care about being right or wrong, I'm just curious what everyone thinks.....

[Mushtang]

I actually agree with this Mushtang and it sounds like we like the same kinds of caches. But I don't think that was the topic that the OP intended.

That sort of speaks to how something in black and white is seen differently. I disagree and think that it exactly speaks to the OPs question of "what is an unacceptable cache hide, and why?" CR and I both replied with what an unacceptable cache hide would be as the cache hider, and what sort of hide we'd find unacceptable as a finder.

 

As RK pointed out the rubber hits the road at the fringes of the guidelines. These areas are all about interpretation and opinion. We all have different opinions including the reviewers. Even permission which should be crystal clear is up for debate. I thought Johhnygeo's best point was 'I don't know of any power utilities or municipalities that would give permission to hide a game-piece in or on their electrical equipment. Just would not happen.' As we all know it is happening, but does the 'frisbee rule' apply here? I don't care about being right or wrong, I'm just curious what everyone thinks.....

To me the Frisbee Rule does, indeed, speak to permission, which I've yet to comment on in this thread. So far I've only discussed the risk of electrocution vs. other risks. As I stated in my previous post, I will let the guidelines tell me what is acceptable and what is not. If it gets approved, I'll try and find it. If the site lists the cache because they believe that "adequate" permission has been granted, I'm not going to try to overrule them and save them from themselves.

 

I would not hide a transformer cache because I would not think I could get "adequate" permission, and therefore it wouldn't meet the guidelines. But just because I don't want to try doesn't mean someone else doesn't think they have "adequate" permission. If the guidelines change to require "explicit" permission, then that's what I'll start to follow, and I'll expect everyone else to too.

[+TrailGators]

As RK pointed out the rubber hits the road at the fringes of the guidelines. These areas are all about interpretation and opinion. We all have different opinions including the reviewers. Even permission which should be crystal clear is up for debate. I thought Johhnygeo's best point was 'I don't know of any power utilities or municipalities that would give permission to hide a game-piece in or on their electrical equipment. Just would not happen.' As we all know it is happening, but does the 'frisbee rule' apply here? I don't care about being right or wrong, I'm just curious what everyone thinks.....

To me the Frisbee Rule does, indeed, speak to permission, which I've yet to comment on in this thread. So far I've only discussed the risk of electrocution vs. other risks. As I stated in my previous post, I will let the guidelines tell me what is acceptable and what is not. If it gets approved, I'll try and find it. If the site lists the cache because they believe that "adequate" permission has been granted, I'm not going to try to overrule them and save them from themselves.

 

I would not hide a transformer cache because I would not think I could get "adequate" permission, and therefore it wouldn't meet the guidelines. But just because I don't want to try doesn't mean someone else doesn't think they have "adequate" permission. If the guidelines change to require "explicit" permission, then that's what I'll start to follow, and I'll expect everyone else to too.

I think we are agreeing again and that's what I meant by guideline interpretation earlier. I would also not hide one of these caches because I agree with Johnnygeo's assessment that the responsible parties would not want caches in those areas. I'm curious why you would think that you could not get "adequate permission" in this case.

[+David]

This isn't exactly dangerous, but I hate to search for caches hidden in childrens playgrounds. If there are any parent to child muggles around I get the feeling that they think I am a creep kidnapper or something. This happened to me a couple of weeks ago so I just skipped it to avoid any awkward feelings by the parents.

 

Bring a dog. For some reason people find you less threatening if you have a dog.

Then again I have a corgi (refer to avatar) and no one can ever think they're threatening.

What kind of kidnapper has a corgi? None.

 

You're right. When I started hanging out at playgrounds intent on kidnapping, the first thing I did was get rid of my Corgi.

[+TrailGators]

This isn't exactly dangerous, but I hate to search for caches hidden in childrens playgrounds. If there are any parent to child muggles around I get the feeling that they think I am a creep kidnapper or something. This happened to me a couple of weeks ago so I just skipped it to avoid any awkward feelings by the parents.

 

Bring a dog. For some reason people find you less threatening if you have a dog.

Then again I have a corgi (refer to avatar) and no one can ever think they're threatening.

What kind of kidnapper has a corgi? None.

 

You're right. When I started hanging out at playgrounds intent on kidnapping, the first thing I did was get rid of my Corgi.

Why would you blow your cover?

[+briansnat]

If I loan you a car without either of us having any reason to believe that the brakes are anything other than normal and functional, then I have committed no crime – and, as usual, you drive the car at your own risk, preferably after considering the likelihood that the brakes (or any other safety feature) in a typically-maintained car will fail.

 

What if you loan him a Yugo?

[+JamGuys]

Well, I must say that I interpret the OP's use of the word "unacceptable" to simply mean undesirable. To quote, ".... maybe we can see some pattern of what people really do not like to look for when caching". So, in no particular order, here is my personal Top Ten list of "unacceptable" cache hides.

 

1. Micros hidden in the woods.

 

2. Micros hidden in urban areas.

 

3. Caches hidden in or around dumpsters.

 

4. Caches hidden in or around homeless encampments.

 

5. Caches that require me to demonstrate "stealth".

 

6. Caches that might initiate contact with law enforcement due to my failure to demonstrate "stealth".

 

7. Caches advertised as being hidden simply because "this place literally screamed out for a cache".

 

8. Caches with poorly written cache descriptions.

 

9. Caches that require me to send an e-mail to the cache owner for any reason.

 

10. Did I already say micros hidden in the woods?

 

Having said that, most of these "unacceptable" cache hides become quite acceptable to me if there's a FTF opportunity involved!

[+TrailGators]

Well, I must say that I interpret the OP's use of the word "unacceptable" to simply mean undesirable. To quote, ".... maybe we can see some pattern of what people really do not like to look for when caching". So, in no particular order, here is my personal Top Ten list of "unacceptable" cache hides.

 

1. Micros hidden in the woods.

 

2. Micros hidden in urban areas.

 

3. Caches hidden in or around dumpsters.

 

4. Caches hidden in or around homeless encampments.

 

5. Caches that require me to demonstrate "stealth".

 

6. Caches that might initiate contact with law enforcement due to my failure to demonstrate "stealth".

 

7. Caches advertised as being hidden simply because "this place literally screamed out for a cache".

 

8. Caches with poorly written cache descriptions.

 

9. Caches that require me to send an e-mail to the cache owner for any reason.

 

10. Did I already say micros hidden in the woods?

 

Having said that, most of these "unacceptable" cache hides become quite acceptable to me if there's a FTF opportunity involved!

I agree with your list as being undesirable to some people (#3 and #4 might even get a clear majority). However, those caches are all acceptable because they all clearly meet the site guidelines. Edited January 6, 2009 by TrailGators

[+Rockin Roddy]

If I loan you a car without either of us having any reason to believe that the brakes are anything other than normal and functional, then I have committed no crime – and, as usual, you drive the car at your own risk, preferably after considering the likelihood that the brakes (or any other safety feature) in a typically-maintained car will fail.

 

What if you loan him a Yugo?

 

Are there even any left?

[Mushtang]

Well, I must say that I interpret the OP's use of the word "unacceptable" to simply mean undesirable. To quote, ".... maybe we can see some pattern of what people really do not like to look for when caching". So, in no particular order, here is my personal Top Ten list of "unacceptable" cache hides.

 

1. Micros hidden in the woods.

 

2. Micros hidden in urban areas.

 

3. Caches hidden in or around dumpsters.

 

4. Caches hidden in or around homeless encampments.

 

5. Caches that require me to demonstrate "stealth".

 

6. Caches that might initiate contact with law enforcement due to my failure to demonstrate "stealth".

 

7. Caches advertised as being hidden simply because "this place literally screamed out for a cache".

 

8. Caches with poorly written cache descriptions.

 

9. Caches that require me to send an e-mail to the cache owner for any reason.

 

10. Did I already say micros hidden in the woods?

 

Having said that, most of these "unacceptable" cache hides become quite acceptable to me if there's a FTF opportunity involved!

I agree with your list as being undesirable to some people (#3 and #4 might even get a clear majority). However, those caches are all acceptable because they all clearly meet the site guidelines.

Then so are caches in lamp posts and on transformers. They all clearly meet the site guidelines.

 

Since they do, and since you pointed out in your previous post that meeting the guidelines makes a cache acceptable, does this mean that you believe that electrical equipment caches, which meet site guidelines, are acceptable?

[+Rockin Roddy]

I just wanted to apologize to all. Life has been harsh and I have been struggling...and my mind hasn't been working as well as it should. No excuses, I should be in better control and I will try to do better in the future!

 

For those I have upset, sorry! That goes for you mods too...I know I've been hell lately, but it's taken a few emails and some soul searching to figure some things out...it'll be better, I don't think it can get worse!

 

Until I can keep my emotions in check, I will try to stay out of the heated debates...but I might pop in to be a pain now and then

[Clan Riffster]

Well, I must say that I interpret the OP's use of the word "unacceptable" to simply mean undesirable.

Yeah, me too. I never considered this a guidelines issue. More of a, "what is unacceptable to you" question. Of your top ten list, the one I might remove is # 7, as I've seen places that fit that description. Just recently, I found a cache deep in a practically impenetrable wetland. The canopy was so dense that even my 60CSx was losing satellites. The foliage wall was so thick that you had to duck, crawl, hack and twist your way through, stopping every few feet to figure out how to go further. After fighting this for several hundred feet, we came across a 1953 Plymouth Cranbrook wedged amongst some trees. Either this thing was drug back here 50 some odd years ago, and the jungle grew around it, or it was plopped in by helicopter. To me, that's a spot that screams for a cache. Thankfully, the person who recently explored this area, finding the car, felt the same way, hiding one there for me to find. If they hadn't, I would've never been brought to that place.

 

Caveat: I also know of folks who see the hedges around a Burger King as "a spot screaming for a cache", so maybe there is some validity to your selection.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Well, I must say that I interpret the OP's use of the word "unacceptable" to simply mean undesirable. To quote, ".... maybe we can see some pattern of what people really do not like to look for when caching". So, in no particular order, here is my personal Top Ten list of "unacceptable" cache hides.

 

1. Micros hidden in the woods.

 

2. Micros hidden in urban areas.

 

3. Caches hidden in or around dumpsters.

 

4. Caches hidden in or around homeless encampments.

 

5. Caches that require me to demonstrate "stealth".

 

6. Caches that might initiate contact with law enforcement due to my failure to demonstrate "stealth".

 

7. Caches advertised as being hidden simply because "this place literally screamed out for a cache".

 

8. Caches with poorly written cache descriptions.

 

9. Caches that require me to send an e-mail to the cache owner for any reason.

 

10. Did I already say micros hidden in the woods?

 

Having said that, most of these "unacceptable" cache hides become quite acceptable to me if there's a FTF opportunity involved!

I agree with your list as being undesirable to some people (#3 and #4 might even get a clear majority). However, those caches are all acceptable because they all clearly meet the site guidelines.

Then so are caches in lamp posts and on transformers. They all clearly meet the site guidelines.

 

Since they do, and since you pointed out in your previous post that meeting the guidelines makes a cache acceptable, does this mean that you believe that electrical equipment caches, which meet site guidelines, are acceptable?

 

Oh OH...let me field this one...NO. Not acceptable for me. Others might feel differently and I can accept that.

[Mushtang]

Well, I must say that I interpret the OP's use of the word "unacceptable" to simply mean undesirable. To quote, ".... maybe we can see some pattern of what people really do not like to look for when caching". So, in no particular order, here is my personal Top Ten list of "unacceptable" cache hides.

 

1. Micros hidden in the woods.

 

2. Micros hidden in urban areas.

 

3. Caches hidden in or around dumpsters.

 

4. Caches hidden in or around homeless encampments.

 

5. Caches that require me to demonstrate "stealth".

 

6. Caches that might initiate contact with law enforcement due to my failure to demonstrate "stealth".

 

7. Caches advertised as being hidden simply because "this place literally screamed out for a cache".

 

8. Caches with poorly written cache descriptions.

 

9. Caches that require me to send an e-mail to the cache owner for any reason.

 

10. Did I already say micros hidden in the woods?

 

Having said that, most of these "unacceptable" cache hides become quite acceptable to me if there's a FTF opportunity involved!

I agree with your list as being undesirable to some people (#3 and #4 might even get a clear majority). However, those caches are all acceptable because they all clearly meet the site guidelines.

Then so are caches in lamp posts and on transformers. They all clearly meet the site guidelines.

 

Since they do, and since you pointed out in your previous post that meeting the guidelines makes a cache acceptable, does this mean that you believe that electrical equipment caches, which meet site guidelines, are acceptable?

Oh OH...let me field this one...NO. Not acceptable for me. Others might feel differently and I can accept that.

If that's what he meant, that's not at all what he said. Because I've been accused of intentionally misunderstanding post, twisting words, etc. I thought I'd ask him to clarify.

 

He said that he agreed with the list being undesirable to some people, but went on to say that they're all acceptable because they clearly meet the site guidelines.

 

If he had said the list was undesirable to some people but they're all acceptable to some people because they meet guidelines, I wouldn't have asked for clarification (and his post wouldn't have made much sense).

 

So, it seems like TG is saying that a guideline meeting cache is acceptable just because it meets the guidelines. I agree with this. But is that what he meant? Hopefully he'll reply and clarify.

[+JamGuys]

Caveat: I also know of folks who see the hedges around a Burger King as "a spot screaming for a cache", so maybe there is some validity to your selection.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

[Sadie]

All these things said, acceptable on a personal level changes person to person. One could even draw a line between what is acceptable to a person who reads the forums and those that do not read the forums.

 

So.. what is acceptable in the guidelines is described in the guidelines, with some clarifications discussed in the forums.

 

I do have one question... if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them? Sure, it's possible that you can get electrocuted, but then you can get hit by a bus or drown in a mud puddle.

 

And I don't like sneaky hides in remote places (micro in the woods) either.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Sadie

[+TrailGators]

Well, I must say that I interpret the OP's use of the word "unacceptable" to simply mean undesirable. To quote, ".... maybe we can see some pattern of what people really do not like to look for when caching". So, in no particular order, here is my personal Top Ten list of "unacceptable" cache hides.

 

1. Micros hidden in the woods.

 

2. Micros hidden in urban areas.

 

3. Caches hidden in or around dumpsters.

 

4. Caches hidden in or around homeless encampments.

 

5. Caches that require me to demonstrate "stealth".

 

6. Caches that might initiate contact with law enforcement due to my failure to demonstrate "stealth".

 

7. Caches advertised as being hidden simply because "this place literally screamed out for a cache".

 

8. Caches with poorly written cache descriptions.

 

9. Caches that require me to send an e-mail to the cache owner for any reason.

 

10. Did I already say micros hidden in the woods?

 

Having said that, most of these "unacceptable" cache hides become quite acceptable to me if there's a FTF opportunity involved!

I agree with your list as being undesirable to some people (#3 and #4 might even get a clear majority). However, those caches are all acceptable because they all clearly meet the site guidelines.

Then so are caches in lamp posts and on transformers. They all clearly meet the site guidelines.

 

Since they do, and since you pointed out in your previous post that meeting the guidelines makes a cache acceptable, does this mean that you believe that electrical equipment caches, which meet site guidelines, are acceptable?

I think transformers are a minimum of questionable from an adequate permission standpoint. So those do not "clearly" meet the guidelines IMHO. LPCs comply because of the frisbee rule.

[+TrailGators]

Well, I must say that I interpret the OP's use of the word "unacceptable" to simply mean undesirable. To quote, ".... maybe we can see some pattern of what people really do not like to look for when caching". So, in no particular order, here is my personal Top Ten list of "unacceptable" cache hides.

 

1. Micros hidden in the woods.

 

2. Micros hidden in urban areas.

 

3. Caches hidden in or around dumpsters.

 

4. Caches hidden in or around homeless encampments.

 

5. Caches that require me to demonstrate "stealth".

 

6. Caches that might initiate contact with law enforcement due to my failure to demonstrate "stealth".

 

7. Caches advertised as being hidden simply because "this place literally screamed out for a cache".

 

8. Caches with poorly written cache descriptions.

 

9. Caches that require me to send an e-mail to the cache owner for any reason.

 

10. Did I already say micros hidden in the woods?

 

Having said that, most of these "unacceptable" cache hides become quite acceptable to me if there's a FTF opportunity involved!

I agree with your list as being undesirable to some people (#3 and #4 might even get a clear majority). However, those caches are all acceptable because they all clearly meet the site guidelines.

Then so are caches in lamp posts and on transformers. They all clearly meet the site guidelines.

 

Since they do, and since you pointed out in your previous post that meeting the guidelines makes a cache acceptable, does this mean that you believe that electrical equipment caches, which meet site guidelines, are acceptable?

Oh OH...let me field this one...NO. Not acceptable for me. Others might feel differently and I can accept that.

If that's what he meant, that's not at all what he said. Because I've been accused of intentionally misunderstanding post, twisting words, etc. I thought I'd ask him to clarify.

 

He said that he agreed with the list being undesirable to some people, but went on to say that they're all acceptable because they clearly meet the site guidelines.

 

If he had said the list was undesirable to some people but they're all acceptable to some people because they meet guidelines, I wouldn't have asked for clarification (and his post wouldn't have made much sense).

 

So, it seems like TG is saying that a guideline meeting cache is acceptable just because it meets the guidelines. I agree with this. But is that what he meant? Hopefully he'll reply and clarify.

This is what I meant. I was using acceptable in the context of caches being accepted and approved on the site. Most caches are accepted because they "clearly" meet the guidelines. Other caches are not so clear IMHO. This is where we enter the gray area of discussion. Whether a cache is undesirable to some or even many has nothing to do with being accepted and listed on the site.

[+TrailGators]

I do have one question... if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them? Sure, it's possible that you can get electrocuted, but then you can get hit by a bus or drown in a mud puddle.

 

And I don't like sneaky hides in remote places (micro in the woods) either.

That's a good question. However, before geocaching how many people were messing with electrical equipment? So maybe in their minds it was something that they didn't need to spend extra money on to safeguard against. Also it's also a valid point as to how many people have been electrocuted. I tend to be proactive instead of reactive.

 

So here's a question:

If someone close to you got electrocuted and badly hurt by looking for a game piece in an electrical box what would you think?

a) It's only one person that got shocked, so no biggie.

b.) The cache didn't have permission and this shouldn't have happened.

c) Why are we even messing around with hiding caches in electrical boxes when there are so many other places to hide a cache?

d) Tough luck. The guy was a moron and survival of the fittest finally kicked in for him.

Edited January 6, 2009 by TrailGators

[+JamGuys]

This is what I meant. I was using acceptable in the context of caches being accepted and approved on the site. Most caches are accepted because they "clearly" meet the guidelines. Other caches are not so clear IMHO. This is where we enter the gray area of discussion. Whether a cache is undesirable to some or even many has nothing to do with being accepted and listed on the site.

Well, this is what the OP said: "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."

 

While I suppose the first sentence could be interpreted to mean, "What do you feel should or should not be acceptable as a cache hide by Groundspeak?" and hence be an issue about guidelines, the explanatory second sentence clearly makes this out to be more a question about personal preference. Just because a cache listing is approved and published on this site does not mean that I have to look for it. Now, if that's not what he meant then, IMHO, his question was ambiguous at best and contradictory at worst!

Edited January 6, 2009 by JamGuys

[+TrailGators]

This is what I meant. I was using acceptable in the context of caches being accepted and approved on the site. Most caches are accepted because they "clearly" meet the guidelines. Other caches are not so clear IMHO. This is where we enter the gray area of discussion. Whether a cache is undesirable to some or even many has nothing to do with being accepted and listed on the site.

Well, this is what the OP said: "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."

 

While I suppose the first sentence could be interpreted to mean, "What do you feel should or should not be acceptable as a cache hide by Groundspeak?" and hence be an issue about guidelines, the explanatory second sentence clearly makes this out to be more a question about personal preference. Just because a cache listing is approved and published on this site does not mean that I have to look for it. Now, if that's not what he meant then, IMHO, his question was ambiguous at best and contradictory at worst!

I agree. The example he gave to support his question gave me the impression that he was questioning why some caches get approved (accepted) in the first place. So to me his acceptance question boiled down to how each of us would interpret the guidelines for gray area caches. I don't see any point in starting another hackneyed thread on why people hate micros, so I also thought this other path (if that is what the OP meant) was far more interesting and worthy of a discussion. Edited January 6, 2009 by TrailGators

[Sadie]

I do have one question... if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them? Sure, it's possible that you can get electrocuted, but then you can get hit by a bus or drown in a mud puddle.

 

And I don't like sneaky hides in remote places (micro in the woods) either.

That's a good question. However, before geocaching how many people were messing with electrical equipment? So maybe in their minds it was something that they didn't need to spend extra money on to safeguard against. Also it's also a valid point as to how many people have been electrocuted. I tend to be proactive instead of reactive.

 

So here's a question:

If someone close to you got electrocuted and badly hurt by looking for a game piece in an electrical box what would you think?

a) It's only one person that got shocked, so no biggie.

b.) The cache didn't have permission and this shouldn't have happened.

c) Why are we even messing around with hiding caches in electrical boxes when there are so many other places to hide a cache?

d) Tough luck. The guy was a moron and survival of the fittest finally kicked in for him.

Not seekeing a cache because of safety reasons is very understandable. Getting electrocuted by an electical box is a possiblitity as is getting bit by a poisonous snake or falling off a cliff. Perhaps getting hit by a car while slowing down to enter a parking lot where the cache is located. I would feel bad if any of these occured on any caches, whether I owned them or not.

 

I would look more at things like defacing property or exposing folks to not obvious dangers, such as booby traps.

[+JamGuys]

I don't see any point in starting another hackneyed thread on why people hate micros, so I also thought this other path (if that is what the OP meant) was far more interesting and worthy of a discussion.

Actually, I never said that I hated micros, just that they were "unacceptable". Now, nanos on the other hand .........

[Clan Riffster]

if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them?

I can't speak for OSHA, other than a general belief that the best way to bog down any process is to turn it over to the 'gubment' to run it. I will say that I, personally, won't hunt for micros on transformers because they don't fit my entirely biased caching aesthetic. In other words, they are simply to boring to give me pleasure. That's also why I won't hide one there. Way too high yawn factor. Also, there is my belief that the owners of said transformers would never consent to my placing a cache on them. Safety never even enters the equation. Having seen these things get hit by cars traveling at high speeds, and the resulting lack of large scale death & destruction, leads me to believe they are reasonably safe devices, unlikely to kill or maim wayward geocachers poking around on them.

 

So, are electric transformer caches acceptable?

 

To me? No.

To my brighter half? Yes.

To Groundspeak? Probably.

[+TrailGators]

if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them?

I can't speak for OSHA, other than a general belief that the best way to bog down any process is to turn it over to the 'gubment' to run it. I will say that I, personally, won't hunt for micros on transformers because they don't fit my entirely biased caching aesthetic. In other words, they are simply to boring to give me pleasure. That's also why I won't hide one there. Way too high yawn factor. Also, there is my belief that the owners of said transformers would never consent to my placing a cache on them. Safety never even enters the equation. Having seen these things get hit by cars traveling at high speeds, and the resulting lack of large scale death & destruction, leads me to believe they are reasonably safe devices, unlikely to kill or maim wayward geocachers poking around on them.

 

So, are electric transformer caches acceptable?

 

To me? No.

To my brighter half? Yes.

To Groundspeak? Probably.

I bolded your key statement, which highlights the guideline in question. Like you, Mushtang and I already agree that these probably do not have "adequate permission," so we would not place caches in those locations. I'm curious, if there are people in this thread that think the owners of this electrical equipment would consent?

[+TrailGators]

I don't see any point in starting another hackneyed thread on why people hate micros, so I also thought this other path (if that is what the OP meant) was far more interesting and worthy of a discussion.

Actually, I never said that I hated micros, just that they were "unacceptable". Now, nanos on the other hand .........

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. Those threads just have a way of sinking into that kind of discussion.

[+Unkle Fester]

Are we asking what is unacceptable to us personally - or in general?

 

I'm about to hit 40 and simply don't heal as fast as I used too. When a cache is 35 feet up a pine tree and you have to climb to retrieve... Personally, I find that unacceptable, meaning I as a cache finder will not take the personal risk to retrieve. If I fall out of the tree, I no longer just bounce right back up, I'll lay there two or three days until the garbage cleanup crew comes round from the prison.

 

Same thing with caches at someones home, I've done a couple, but felt very awkward. So I find these as unacceptable too. It just means I will drive by and keep going.

 

In General, if it's outside the guidelines (Inside a fence that is clearly private propery) they sometimes sneak them by the reviewers, but I notice that responsable cachers will post notes and contact the owner with concerns. 9 out of 10 will move or disable. Self policeing usually works.

 

Some hides, to include some of my own have NRV (No Redeming Value), nano or micro doesn't matter because it's personall taste. I am working on changing that by slowly replacing my NRV caches with slightly more acceptable ones, but that's not the point. Some of my caches are challenging, have good views, or simply get you to take a drive in the country.

 

But as has been stated, I cannot put my beliefs, likes and values onto someone elses caches.

 

I like to tell people who have complained that they are more than welcome to ignore my hides. That won't break my heart. I just hope people have fun finding some of my unique or evil hides.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Well, I must say that I interpret the OP's use of the word "unacceptable" to simply mean undesirable. To quote, ".... maybe we can see some pattern of what people really do not like to look for when caching". So, in no particular order, here is my personal Top Ten list of "unacceptable" cache hides.

 

1. Micros hidden in the woods.

 

2. Micros hidden in urban areas.

 

3. Caches hidden in or around dumpsters.

 

4. Caches hidden in or around homeless encampments.

 

5. Caches that require me to demonstrate "stealth".

 

6. Caches that might initiate contact with law enforcement due to my failure to demonstrate "stealth".

 

7. Caches advertised as being hidden simply because "this place literally screamed out for a cache".

 

8. Caches with poorly written cache descriptions.

 

9. Caches that require me to send an e-mail to the cache owner for any reason.

 

10. Did I already say micros hidden in the woods?

 

Having said that, most of these "unacceptable" cache hides become quite acceptable to me if there's a FTF opportunity involved!

I agree with your list as being undesirable to some people (#3 and #4 might even get a clear majority). However, those caches are all acceptable because they all clearly meet the site guidelines.

Then so are caches in lamp posts and on transformers. They all clearly meet the site guidelines.

 

Since they do, and since you pointed out in your previous post that meeting the guidelines makes a cache acceptable, does this mean that you believe that electrical equipment caches, which meet site guidelines, are acceptable?

Oh OH...let me field this one...NO. Not acceptable for me. Others might feel differently and I can accept that.

If that's what he meant, that's not at all what he said. Because I've been accused of intentionally misunderstanding post, twisting words, etc. I thought I'd ask him to clarify.

 

He said that he agreed with the list being undesirable to some people, but went on to say that they're all acceptable because they clearly meet the site guidelines.

 

If he had said the list was undesirable to some people but they're all acceptable to some people because they meet guidelines, I wouldn't have asked for clarification (and his post wouldn't have made much sense).

 

So, it seems like TG is saying that a guideline meeting cache is acceptable just because it meets the guidelines. I agree with this. But is that what he meant? Hopefully he'll reply and clarify.

 

I know, I made that statement about my personal feelings!

[+TrailGators]

Are we asking what is unacceptable to us personally - or in general?

 

I'm about to hit 40 and simply don't heal as fast as I used too. When a cache is 35 feet up a pine tree and you have to climb to retrieve... Personally, I find that unacceptable, meaning I as a cache finder will not take the personal risk to retrieve. If I fall out of the tree, I no longer just bounce right back up, I'll lay there two or three days until the garbage cleanup crew comes round from the prison.

 

Same thing with caches at someones home, I've done a couple, but felt very awkward. So I find these as unacceptable too. It just means I will drive by and keep going.

 

In General, if it's outside the guidelines (Inside a fence that is clearly private propery) they sometimes sneak them by the reviewers, but I notice that responsable cachers will post notes and contact the owner with concerns. 9 out of 10 will move or disable. Self policeing usually works.

 

Some hides, to include some of my own have NRV (No Redeming Value), nano or micro doesn't matter because it's personall taste. I am working on changing that by slowly replacing my NRV caches with slightly more acceptable ones, but that's not the point. Some of my caches are challenging, have good views, or simply get you to take a drive in the country.

 

But as has been stated, I cannot put my beliefs, likes and values onto someone elses caches.

 

I like to tell people who have complained that they are more than welcome to ignore my hides. That won't break my heart. I just hope people have fun finding some of my unique or evil hides.

What would the point be in asking people if things like terrain 4.5 or 5 caches are acceptable to them? It would be like polling random opinions. YOu are going to get every color of the rainbow doing that. That's why I really think a better discussion (and what the OP was driving at) is what is acceptable in general. But that is my two cents...

[Mushtang]

if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them?

I can't speak for OSHA, other than a general belief that the best way to bog down any process is to turn it over to the 'gubment' to run it. I will say that I, personally, won't hunt for micros on transformers because they don't fit my entirely biased caching aesthetic. In other words, they are simply to boring to give me pleasure. That's also why I won't hide one there. Way too high yawn factor. Also, there is my belief that the owners of said transformers would never consent to my placing a cache on them. Safety never even enters the equation. Having seen these things get hit by cars traveling at high speeds, and the resulting lack of large scale death & destruction, leads me to believe they are reasonably safe devices, unlikely to kill or maim wayward geocachers poking around on them.

 

So, are electric transformer caches acceptable?

 

To me? No.

To my brighter half? Yes.

To Groundspeak? Probably.

I bolded your key statement, which highlights the guideline in question. Like you, Mushtang and I already agree that these probably do not have "adequate permission," so we would not place caches in those locations. I'm curious, if there are people in this thread that think the owners of this electrical equipment would consent?

Not exactly. Let me clarify. I said that I didn't think that I'D be able to get adequate permission. But since these are approved under the guidelines I'll assume that the cache owners felt that they had "adequate" permission, and therefore the site allowed the cache to be listed.

[+TrailGators]

if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them?

I can't speak for OSHA, other than a general belief that the best way to bog down any process is to turn it over to the 'gubment' to run it. I will say that I, personally, won't hunt for micros on transformers because they don't fit my entirely biased caching aesthetic. In other words, they are simply to boring to give me pleasure. That's also why I won't hide one there. Way too high yawn factor. Also, there is my belief that the owners of said transformers would never consent to my placing a cache on them. Safety never even enters the equation. Having seen these things get hit by cars traveling at high speeds, and the resulting lack of large scale death & destruction, leads me to believe they are reasonably safe devices, unlikely to kill or maim wayward geocachers poking around on them.

 

So, are electric transformer caches acceptable?

 

To me? No.

To my brighter half? Yes.

To Groundspeak? Probably.

I bolded your key statement, which highlights the guideline in question. Like you, Mushtang and I already agree that these probably do not have "adequate permission," so we would not place caches in those locations. I'm curious, if there are people in this thread that think the owners of this electrical equipment would consent?

Not exactly. Let me clarify. I said that I didn't think that I'D be able to get adequate permission. But since these are approved under the guidelines I'll assume that the cache owners felt that they had "adequate" permission, and therefore the site allowed the cache to be listed.

Why wouldn't you be able to get adequate permission?

[Mushtang]

if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them?

I can't speak for OSHA, other than a general belief that the best way to bog down any process is to turn it over to the 'gubment' to run it. I will say that I, personally, won't hunt for micros on transformers because they don't fit my entirely biased caching aesthetic. In other words, they are simply to boring to give me pleasure. That's also why I won't hide one there. Way too high yawn factor. Also, there is my belief that the owners of said transformers would never consent to my placing a cache on them. Safety never even enters the equation. Having seen these things get hit by cars traveling at high speeds, and the resulting lack of large scale death & destruction, leads me to believe they are reasonably safe devices, unlikely to kill or maim wayward geocachers poking around on them.

 

So, are electric transformer caches acceptable?

 

To me? No.

To my brighter half? Yes.

To Groundspeak? Probably.

I bolded your key statement, which highlights the guideline in question. Like you, Mushtang and I already agree that these probably do not have "adequate permission," so we would not place caches in those locations. I'm curious, if there are people in this thread that think the owners of this electrical equipment would consent?

Not exactly. Let me clarify. I said that I didn't think that I'D be able to get adequate permission. But since these are approved under the guidelines I'll assume that the cache owners felt that they had "adequate" permission, and therefore the site allowed the cache to be listed.

Why wouldn't you be able to get adequate permission?

I see a difference in transformers that are usually on the side of a building, where folks are not invited to walk around like they are in a parking lot, and a lamp post. With a lamp post, I'll assume it's okay to hide a cache there and to me this is adequate. With a transformer, I won't make that assumption, and to me "adequate" would require actually talking to someone that either owns the property, the building, the transformer, etc. Since this cache isn't one that I'd want to hide badly enough to actually put forth some effort and talk to someone about it, I wouldn't be able to get adequate permission.

 

So, why wouldn't I be able to get adequate permission? Because I wouldn't attempt to.

 

And as I've said, if another hider feels that they have adequate permission, and the reviewer agrees and allows the cache to be published, I'll have no issue with finding it.

[+TrailGators]

if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them?

I can't speak for OSHA, other than a general belief that the best way to bog down any process is to turn it over to the 'gubment' to run it. I will say that I, personally, won't hunt for micros on transformers because they don't fit my entirely biased caching aesthetic. In other words, they are simply to boring to give me pleasure. That's also why I won't hide one there. Way too high yawn factor. Also, there is my belief that the owners of said transformers would never consent to my placing a cache on them. Safety never even enters the equation. Having seen these things get hit by cars traveling at high speeds, and the resulting lack of large scale death & destruction, leads me to believe they are reasonably safe devices, unlikely to kill or maim wayward geocachers poking around on them.

 

So, are electric transformer caches acceptable?

 

To me? No.

To my brighter half? Yes.

To Groundspeak? Probably.

I bolded your key statement, which highlights the guideline in question. Like you, Mushtang and I already agree that these probably do not have "adequate permission," so we would not place caches in those locations. I'm curious, if there are people in this thread that think the owners of this electrical equipment would consent?

Not exactly. Let me clarify. I said that I didn't think that I'D be able to get adequate permission. But since these are approved under the guidelines I'll assume that the cache owners felt that they had "adequate" permission, and therefore the site allowed the cache to be listed.

Why wouldn't you be able to get adequate permission?

I see a difference in transformers that are usually on the side of a building, where folks are not invited to walk around like they are in a parking lot, and a lamp post. With a lamp post, I'll assume it's okay to hide a cache there and to me this is adequate. With a transformer, I won't make that assumption, and to me "adequate" would require actually talking to someone that either owns the property, the building, the transformer, etc. Since this cache isn't one that I'd want to hide badly enough to actually put forth some effort and talk to someone about it, I wouldn't be able to get adequate permission.

 

So, why wouldn't I be able to get adequate permission? Because I wouldn't attempt to.

 

And as I've said, if another hider feels that they have adequate permission, and the reviewer agrees and allows the cache to be published, I'll have no issue with finding it.

I agree with this. I want to make it clear that my intention in asking you this is not to stir the pot. I really don't know the answer with a certainty, but I seriously doubt I could get permission for some of these electrical hides out there if I did try to get permission (which I wouldn't). If you go back to post #6 Iowa Admin evidently felt the same way and drew a different line in the sand. What is interesting is that his interpretation met a lot of resistance which I really don't understand because he is ruling out a very small percentage of hide locations. Edited January 6, 2009 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them?

I can't speak for OSHA, other than a general belief that the best way to bog down any process is to turn it over to the 'gubment' to run it. I will say that I, personally, won't hunt for micros on transformers because they don't fit my entirely biased caching aesthetic. In other words, they are simply to boring to give me pleasure. That's also why I won't hide one there. Way too high yawn factor. Also, there is my belief that the owners of said transformers would never consent to my placing a cache on them. Safety never even enters the equation. Having seen these things get hit by cars traveling at high speeds, and the resulting lack of large scale death & destruction, leads me to believe they are reasonably safe devices, unlikely to kill or maim wayward geocachers poking around on them.

 

So, are electric transformer caches acceptable?

 

To me? No.

To my brighter half? Yes.

To Groundspeak? Probably.

I bolded your key statement, which highlights the guideline in question. Like you, Mushtang and I already agree that these probably do not have "adequate permission," so we would not place caches in those locations. I'm curious, if there are people in this thread that think the owners of this electrical equipment would consent?

Not exactly. Let me clarify. I said that I didn't think that I'D be able to get adequate permission. But since these are approved under the guidelines I'll assume that the cache owners felt that they had "adequate" permission, and therefore the site allowed the cache to be listed.

Why wouldn't you be able to get adequate permission?

I see a difference in transformers that are usually on the side of a building, where folks are not invited to walk around like they are in a parking lot, and a lamp post. With a lamp post, I'll assume it's okay to hide a cache there and to me this is adequate. With a transformer, I won't make that assumption, and to me "adequate" would require actually talking to someone that either owns the property, the building, the transformer, etc. Since this cache isn't one that I'd want to hide badly enough to actually put forth some effort and talk to someone about it, I wouldn't be able to get adequate permission.

 

So, why wouldn't I be able to get adequate permission? Because I wouldn't attempt to.

 

And as I've said, if another hider feels that they have adequate permission, and the reviewer agrees and allows the cache to be published, I'll have no issue with finding it.

I agree with this. I want to make it clear that my intention in asking you this is not to stir the pot. I really don't know the answer with a certainty, but I seriously doubt I could get permission for some of these electrical hides out there if I did try to get permission (which I wouldn't). If you go back to post #6 Iowa Admin evidently felt the same way and drew a different line in the sand. What is interesting is that his interpretation met a lot of resistance which I really don't understand because he is ruling out some immeasurably small percentage of hide locations.

Iowa Admin met with resistance because he had overreached his authority and misrepresented policy (in my opinion from reading this thread and others).

 

Regarding whether 'anyone' could obtain adequate permission depends on a number of things, not the least of which is how 'adequate permission' is defined. Even if we were to demand specific permission, it is not unreasonable to beleave that some cacher somewhere would have a relationship with a person who would give such permission. (In fact, the cacher may be that person.) This is especially true as we consider objects that are hidden close to, but not attached to, the electrical whatsit.

[+sbell111]

I'm amused that there have been so many posts attempting to devine the OP's true intentions for this thread. Given that he made only two posts at the very beginning of the thread and put considerable effort into ensuring that the thread is opened to discuss any and all angsty topics, I suspect that the thread's purpose was solely to ratchet up the forum's angst level.

[Mushtang]

if there is a true public concern about people getting electrocuted by touching one of these, wouldn't OSHA or public safety departments require that there be a fence around them?

I can't speak for OSHA, other than a general belief that the best way to bog down any process is to turn it over to the 'gubment' to run it. I will say that I, personally, won't hunt for micros on transformers because they don't fit my entirely biased caching aesthetic. In other words, they are simply to boring to give me pleasure. That's also why I won't hide one there. Way too high yawn factor. Also, there is my belief that the owners of said transformers would never consent to my placing a cache on them. Safety never even enters the equation. Having seen these things get hit by cars traveling at high speeds, and the resulting lack of large scale death & destruction, leads me to believe they are reasonably safe devices, unlikely to kill or maim wayward geocachers poking around on them.

 

So, are electric transformer caches acceptable?

 

To me? No.

To my brighter half? Yes.

To Groundspeak? Probably.

I bolded your key statement, which highlights the guideline in question. Like you, Mushtang and I already agree that these probably do not have "adequate permission," so we would not place caches in those locations. I'm curious, if there are people in this thread that think the owners of this electrical equipment would consent?

Not exactly. Let me clarify. I said that I didn't think that I'D be able to get adequate permission. But since these are approved under the guidelines I'll assume that the cache owners felt that they had "adequate" permission, and therefore the site allowed the cache to be listed.

Why wouldn't you be able to get adequate permission?

I see a difference in transformers that are usually on the side of a building, where folks are not invited to walk around like they are in a parking lot, and a lamp post. With a lamp post, I'll assume it's okay to hide a cache there and to me this is adequate. With a transformer, I won't make that assumption, and to me "adequate" would require actually talking to someone that either owns the property, the building, the transformer, etc. Since this cache isn't one that I'd want to hide badly enough to actually put forth some effort and talk to someone about it, I wouldn't be able to get adequate permission.

 

So, why wouldn't I be able to get adequate permission? Because I wouldn't attempt to.

 

And as I've said, if another hider feels that they have adequate permission, and the reviewer agrees and allows the cache to be published, I'll have no issue with finding it.

I agree with this. I want to make it clear that my intention in asking you this is not to stir the pot. I really don't know the answer with a certainty, but I seriously doubt I could get permission for some of these electrical hides out there if I did try to get permission (which I wouldn't). If you go back to post #6 Iowa Admin evidently felt the same way and drew a different line in the sand. What is interesting is that his interpretation met a lot of resistance which I really don't understand because he is ruling out some immeasurably small percentage of hide locations.

[+Nozzletime]

What is the "Frisbee Rule" I have seen mentioned a couple of times in this thread?

[+TrailGators]

I'm amused that there have been so many posts attempting to devine the OP's true intentions for this thread. Given that he made only two posts at the very beginning of the thread and put considerable effort into ensuring that the thread is opened to discuss any and all angsty topics, I suspect that the thread's purpose was solely to ratchet up the forum's angst level.

I agree with this too. This is why I was suggesting that we move away from the typical micro bashing thread and discuss the gary areas in a civil manner. Those are more interesting and educational.

[+TrailGators]

What is the "Frisbee Rule" I have seen mentioned a couple of times in this thread?

My understanding is that it basically means that pretty much any place freely open to the public without specific rules is fair game (adequate permission).

 

This is why personally don't think electrical equipment fits into that. Johnnygeo gave some stats in another thread that there are in excess of 7000 "hot" electrical units just in NY City. He has been in that business for 20 years so he would know better than me.

[+TrailGators]

Iowa Admin met with resistance because he had overreached his authority and misrepresented policy (in my opinion from reading this thread and others).

Again this is not to stir the pot. I am just curious. I haven't read all the other threads but doesn't an Admin have the power to decide what adequate permission means for the good of the game? It seems like the definition is very hazy, so I'm not sure how he could have "overreached" haze. If anything he was just being cautious. Is that a bad thing when they are millions of other places to hide caches available? Edited January 6, 2009 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

Iowa Admin met with resistance because he had overreached his authority and misrepresented policy (in my opinion from reading this thread and others).

Again this is not to stir the pot. I am just curious. I haven't read all the other threads but doesn't an Admin have the power to decide what adequate permission means for the good of the game? It seems like the definition is very hazy, so I'm not sure how he could have "overreached" haze. If anything he was just being cautious. Is that a bad thing when they are millions of other places to hide caches available?

In this case it was a line that you didn't mind that he overstepped. But suppose some other reviewer decided that he'd seen far too many ammo cans in the woods, and for whatever silly reason he decided to no longer approve those for the good of the game. In addition, he decided to go archive a few dozen to try and reduce the number in his area, and falsely claim that this was something that Groundspeak has stated is acceptable. Would you care if you found out that this wasn't groundspeaks decision and it was just that one reviewer?

 

Now you can see why it's not really okay for each reviewer to put their own beliefs and opinions on what is a good hide and what is crap. If a cache meets the guidelines, they push the approve button, no matter if it's one that is sure to win major awards or if it's one that they think is the worse cache ever.

[+TrailGators]

Iowa Admin met with resistance because he had overreached his authority and misrepresented policy (in my opinion from reading this thread and others).

Again this is not to stir the pot. I am just curious. I haven't read all the other threads but doesn't an Admin have the power to decide what adequate permission means for the good of the game? It seems like the definition is very hazy, so I'm not sure how he could have "overreached" haze. If anything he was just being cautious. Is that a bad thing when they are millions of other places to hide caches available?

In this case it was a line that you didn't mind that he overstepped. But suppose some other reviewer decided that he'd seen far too many ammo cans in the woods, and for whatever silly reason he decided to no longer approve those for the good of the game. In addition, he decided to go archive a few dozen to try and reduce the number in his area, and falsely claim that this was something that Groundspeak has stated is acceptable. Would you care if you found out that this wasn't groundspeaks decision and it was just that one reviewer?

 

Now you can see why it's not really okay for each reviewer to put their own beliefs and opinions on what is a good hide and what is crap. If a cache meets the guidelines, they push the approve button, no matter if it's one that is sure to win major awards or if it's one that they think is the worse cache ever.

I don't think what Iowa Admin did was similar to randomly not approving clearly legitimate caches. I think those caches were questionable and he had a good point.

 

Adequate permission really only becomes a reality when it's put to the test. So if someone was touching electrical equipment looking for a cache when the electrical guys pulled up in their truck and they got reamed for being near the equipment, what should they do?

Edited January 6, 2009 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

Iowa Admin met with resistance because he had overreached his authority and misrepresented policy (in my opinion from reading this thread and others).

Again this is not to stir the pot. I am just curious. I haven't read all the other threads but doesn't an Admin have the power to decide what adequate permission means for the good of the game? It seems like the definition is very hazy, so I'm not sure how he could have "overreached" haze. If anything he was just being cautious. Is that a bad thing when they are millions of other places to hide caches available?

In this case it was a line that you didn't mind that he overstepped. But suppose some other reviewer decided that he'd seen far too many ammo cans in the woods, and for whatever silly reason he decided to no longer approve those for the good of the game. In addition, he decided to go archive a few dozen to try and reduce the number in his area, and falsely claim that this was something that Groundspeak has stated is acceptable. Would you care if you found out that this wasn't groundspeaks decision and it was just that one reviewer?

 

Now you can see why it's not really okay for each reviewer to put their own beliefs and opinions on what is a good hide and what is crap. If a cache meets the guidelines, they push the approve button, no matter if it's one that is sure to win major awards or if it's one that they think is the worse cache ever.

I don't think what Iowa Admin did was similar to randomly not approving clearly legitimate caches. I think those caches were questionable and he had a good point.

You're arguing the specifics instead of focusing on the idea I'm trying to get across. There was no guideline against these types of caches, but he didn't like them and decided to take it upon himself to not approve them as well as archive some that had already been approved. So yes, it was similar. Apparently he was told not to do that anymore since those caches did not violate any guidelines. In this thread Keystone has said that he knows of enough of these caches that DO have permission that doesn't assume that hiders don't have adequate permission, and he publishes them without asking.

 

Adequate permission really only becomes a reality when it's put to the test. So if someone was touching electrical equipment looking for a cache when the electrical guys pulled up in their truck and they got reamed for being near the equipment, what should they do?

It's not up to the finders to know where the adequate permission came from. If that happened to me I'd apologize and leave, and come back later when the guys were gone. If the store owner gave permission, there's no reason to think that the electrical guys would know about it, so even if the hider knew it wouldn't do much good.

[+sbell111]

Why would I get 'reamed' for touching a light pole or one of those green boxes that sits in my neighbor's yard right next to the sidewalk? Why would I accept such 'reaming' and not tell the 'reamers' to pound sand?

Edited January 6, 2009 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Why would I get 'reamed' for touching a light pole or one of those green boxes that sits in my neighbor's yard right next to the sidewalk? Why would I accept such 'reaming' and not tell the 'reamers' to pound sand?

You probably wouldn't get reamed for caches on/near the most benign electrical devices. It would most likely happen at the other end of the spectrum. Also don't save those caches for a rainy day.

[Mushtang]

You probably wouldn't get reamed for caches on/near the most benign electrical devices.

But YOU said he would. Now you're saying he won't. I'm trying to follow your story here but it's getting too difficult.

[+TrailGators]

You probably wouldn't get reamed for caches on/near the most benign electrical devices.

But YOU said he would. Now you're saying he won't. I'm trying to follow your story here but it's getting too difficult.

This is what I said. I did not specify the type of equipment, but I guess I should have:

So if someone was touching electrical equipment looking for a cache when the electrical guys pulled up in their truck and they got reamed for being near the equipment, what should they do?

Let's assume that it is the same type of equipment that has 7000+ known electrically hot units in NYC.

[+Renegade Knight]

...So here's a question:

If someone close to you got electrocuted and badly hurt by looking for a game piece in an electrical box what would you think?

...

 

1) What dumbass hider would hide one in a live electrical box.

 

or

 

2) You dumbass, what the heck were you doing pocking around live wires?

 

Notice. #2 always applies. #1 may or may not apply.

[+Renegade Knight]

Iowa Admin met with resistance because he had overreached his authority and misrepresented policy (in my opinion from reading this thread and others).

Again this is not to stir the pot. I am just curious. I haven't read all the other threads but doesn't an Admin have the power to decide what adequate permission means for the good of the game? It seems like the definition is very hazy, so I'm not sure how he could have "overreached" haze. If anything he was just being cautious. Is that a bad thing when they are millions of other places to hide caches available?

 

The cache owner has sole power to decide what adequate permission is since they are the ones responsible for the cache. A reviewer has the power to decide if the standard of care exercised by the owner is suitable to list the cache on this site.

[+TrailGators]

...So here's a question:

If someone close to you got electrocuted and badly hurt by looking for a game piece in an electrical box what would you think?

...

 

1) What dumbass hider would hide one in a live electrical box.

 

or

 

2) You dumbass, what the heck were you doing pocking around live wires?

 

Notice. #2 always applies. #1 may or may not apply.

I shouldn't laugh but that was funny. I guess Darwin's law does apply. Edited January 6, 2009 by TrailGators