Unacceptable Cache Hides - In Your Opinion

[+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?

 

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.

1) Earlier several people were adamant that the seekers were always responsible. Do you agree?

2) What do you think about how Iowa Admin decided (post#6)?

[+Renegade Knight]

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'm glad you made a list. A lot of those hides I don't like. My one rule about 'unacceptable' though comes down to caches that cause undue harm. That's not simple to explain though.

 

Examples.

A cache located in view of a security camera. A cache like this can meet all the guidelines and still cause harm when a camera monitor makes a phone call.

Caches in Keystone retaining walls. Finders have 100% of the time made the wall look like a snaggletoothed wonder.

Caches on some steep slopes. I found one on a creek bank. Cachers had sluffed off the fragile vegitation and then sluffed off dirt and mud into the creek when seeking this cache. Even with full permission and an Environmental Impact Statement backing it up I would (and did) find this hide unacceptable.

A cache hidden in a homeowners association common area. That by itself wasn't a problem but the location was a bed of rocks near a landscaped canal that cachers were knocking into the canal and which the homeowners were having to pay to restore.

 

One irony I find is that while I champion the concept of adequate permission, I find that some who champion expelicit permission are perfectly willing to place caches like these that will cause problems - if they can get permission.

[+TrailGators]

My one rule about 'unacceptable' though comes down to caches that cause undue harm. That's not simple to explain though.

 

Examples.

A cache located in view of a security camera. A cache like this can meet all the guidelines and still cause harm when a camera monitor makes a phone call.

Caches in Keystone retaining walls. Finders have 100% of the time made the wall look like a snaggletoothed wonder.

Caches on some steep slopes. I found one on a creek bank. Cachers had sluffed off the fragile vegitation and then sluffed off dirt and mud into the creek when seeking this cache. Even with full permission and an Environmental Impact Statement backing it up I would (and did) find this hide unacceptable.

A cache hidden in a homeowners association common area. That by itself wasn't a problem but the location was a bed of rocks near a landscaped canal that cachers were knocking into the canal and which the homeowners were having to pay to restore.

 

One irony I find is that while I champion the concept of adequate permission, I find that some who champion expelicit permission are perfectly willing to place caches like these that will cause problems - if they can get permission.

I agree with all your examples and would never place any caches like those even though they meet the guidelines.

[+geomann1]

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 like your list and would add

 

11. Magnetic key holders stuck under things or in guardrails.

 

12. Caches in dirty, garbage strewn areas.

 

Personally, I've greatly reduced my caching out of sheer boredom. What I I find as acceptable are:

 

1. Caches placed in scenic or interesting locations that ideally involve a nice walk in pleasant surroundings.

 

2. Caches that involve some genuine creativity.

[+BlueDeuce]

2) What do you think about how Iowa Admin decided (post#6)?

 

How? I'd say it's perfectly well within their decision process to deny a cache. If that's a problem with anyone they can escalate it. Should for some reason the reviewer repeatedly does not quite 'get' the gc.com guidelines they would probably be asked to resign.

 

IA happens to be a very hard working, dedicated, and extremely competent reviewer. While I was told one thing, way back I'm sure the reviewer managed to stay current on policy, better than I ever could.

 

It was old information on my part, not the reviewer.

 

Guidelines do change, don't they?

[+TrailGators]

2) What do you think about how Iowa Admin decided (post#6)?

 

How? I'd say it's perfectly well within their decision process to deny a cache. If that's a problem with anyone they can escalate it. Should for some reason the reviewer repeatedly does not quite 'get' the gc.com guidelines they would probably be asked to resign.

 

IA happens to be a very hard working, dedicated, and extremely competent reviewer. While I was told one thing, way back I'm sure the reviewer managed to stay current on policy, better than I ever could.

 

It was old information on my part, not the reviewer.

 

Guidelines do change, don't they?

Based on what I heard I didn't have a problem with it. As I stated I thought the cache was clearly in a gray area. Admins have a tough job sometimes.

[+BlueDeuce]

That's fine. The question was Unacceptable Cache Hides - In Your Opinion

 

I made the mistake of bringing in non-opinion, right or wrong as it may be.

 

Edit: (removed angst)

Edited January 7, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+tozainamboku]

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

The "Frisbee Rule" is one way of defining adequate permission. Geocaching - like Frisbee - is a game. When do you need to ask permission to play Frisbee? If you don't feel the need to get explicit permission to play Frisbee then why should you need explicit permission to hide/find a geocache. Of course over time, there are places where people now assume adequate permission for hiding caches where one would never play Frisbee without permission, for example in a busy parking lot. (You might play Frisbee in an empty parking lot. But if you hid a cache in an empty parking lot it may be crowded the next day when someone goes to find it.) This rule can easily be extended to electrical equipment or other structures. Perhaps you would use one of these as a goal in some Frisbee game. So why not place a cache there?

 

In addition to adequate permission, Geocaching guidelines prohibit "caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method." In general that means that the cache can't damage the objects it is near or may be attached to, and finders should take care not to cause damage while looking for the cache. I would take this to mean that one should not tamper with electrical equipment or the enclosure that protects the public from coming in contact with the electrical equipment. Placing a magnetic keyholder on the outside of the enclosure is probably OK. Opening an access panel to hide the cache on the inside of the enclosure is probably tampering and against the guidelines. I wouldn't mind the guideline being clarified to prohibit "caches that tamper with or deface public or private ..."

[+MacHammer]

Away from the electrical theme for a while. I DNF'd a hide last week and asked a friend where it was located. He told me where it was and I was disappointed that the hider had chosen this location.

 

The hide is in a public park, in a hummingbird nature garden. The hide is placed at the bottom of an interpretive sign stake. One must pull the interpretive sign out of the ground to find the attached bison tube. As evidence of why this shouldn't occur, one of the other interpretive signs was laying on the ground near the cactus it was supposed to identify. I spent 5 minutes with my kids trying to re-stake the sign, never once believing that the post to its left was the location of the cache. Intentionally placing a hide where you are required to deface the nature of a park, I feel, is inappropriate.

 

I'm already learning that the best way to locate a hide is to look for the footpath that pounds through the brush to the coordinates of the hide. Twice, I've identified caches by finding broken tree branches bent aside in proximity to the cache.

 

I love the practice of Cache In-Trash Out, but Trashing while Caching is giving my new favorite sport a bad name.

 

Mac Hammer

[+OneMile]

In that vein... (and the topic was raised several pages ago, but it bears repeating), I will not tug at sprinkler heads to find the fake, so don't make them. In fact, please refrain from making caches out of anything that look like real vandalizable items.

 

On the relatively few recent caches I've found, several where in technically public areas directly adjacent to privately maintained land. Why would I jeopardize the cache by giving the land owner the idea that these frequent wandering strangers go around digging and pulling on breakable stuff?

 

Challenge yourself to make better hides.

[+OregonCacher]

In my mind, this reminds me too much of how our government operates.

 

I don't think we should rely on geocaching.com or any of its volunteers to ensure that a cache is hidden safely in regards to electrical boxes or things of such nature. If you are after a cache and believe that the location is unsafe, don't continue to pursue it. Maybe post a little note telling people that there is potential hazard, but whether one thing is safe or even a valid hide(referring to MacHammer's post), is up to the person caching.

 

People are going to have very different views on what is right etc, and debating legitimacy is a never ending cycle... about anything!

 

There are so many caches around theres no way to make sure that everyone of them are in a valid location so really the only thing we can do is hope cacher's use common sense, and possibly report a cache if its deemed to be unsafe for EVERYONE searching.

 

Just my two cents

[+Unkle Fester]

In my mind, this reminds me too much of how our government operates.

 

I don't think we should rely on geocaching.com or any of its volunteers to ensure that a cache is hidden safely in regards to electrical boxes or things of such nature. If you are after a cache and believe that the location is unsafe, don't continue to pursue it. Maybe post a little note telling people that there is potential hazard, but whether one thing is safe or even a valid hide(referring to MacHammer's post), is up to the person caching.

 

People are going to have very different views on what is right etc, and debating legitimacy is a never ending cycle... about anything!

 

There are so many caches around theres no way to make sure that everyone of them are in a valid location so really the only thing we can do is hope cacher's use common sense, and possibly report a cache if its deemed to be unsafe for EVERYONE searching.

 

Just my two cents

Well said, but with the current economic crisis, two cents had been adjusted for inflation to $4.95

 

Just my $4.95

Edited January 7, 2009 by Unkle Fester

[+Unkle Fester]

...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.

Chlorine in the gene pool, that's what we need. And a bigger filter.

[+rjgraves]

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 have seen caches that are made to look like labels on a transformer. As an employee of an electric utility, I can tell you that we are required by homeland security to report any suspicious activity near company property. An alert employee may mistake a cacher for a vandal/terrorist. Also, if the label has letters or numbers, it may be confusing to linemen, and in rare cases could cause real problems during outages or switching procedures. That said, I am definitely a fan of clever hides, as long as they are safe.

[+Renegade Knight]

...1) Earlier several people were adamant that the seekers were always responsible. Do you agree?

2) What do you think about how Iowa Admin decided (post#6)?

 

I think it's possible that the reviewer had better information than what's in these forums. However based on what's in the forums, I disagree that they should have made up their own guidline for enforcment. If it's worthy of bieng a guideline for one reviewer with the backing of this site, then it's worthy of being added to the overall guidelines. That it's not (or I missed that update) means that we now have a patchwork quilt of unwritten guidelines.

 

As for seekers assume all risks. Yes they do. It would take a cacher placing a cache with malice to break that. The most malice that I've seen in cache placments are the owners who like DNF's more than smilies from their finders. I have seen placments by some owners who are clearly more brave about things than some finders. Even then though the finder has to know their limits. They are the same ones they live with when not seeking a cache. It doesn't change just because a cache shows up. A cache may encourage a finder to expand their limits, or push their luck. However pushing your luck is a personal choice not a cache owners choice. Expanding your limits can be done safely. Exercising to take a longer hike for example.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have seen caches that are made to look like labels on a transformer. As an employee of an electric utility, I can tell you that we are required by homeland security to report any suspicious activity near company property. An alert employee may mistake a cacher for a vandal/terrorist. Also, if the label has letters or numbers, it may be confusing to linemen, and in rare cases could cause real problems during outages or switching procedures. That said, I am definitely a fan of clever hides, as long as they are safe.

 

Required or encouraged?

 

An alert person would report almost every cacher they see regardless of a sticker on a box, or a cache under a rock. The signs that the DOHS tells you to look for are amazingly similar to utterly harmless caching behavior.

[+Renegade Knight]

Away from the electrical theme for a while. I DNF'd a hide last week and asked a friend where it was located. He told me where it was and I was disappointed that the hider had chosen this location.

 

The hide is in a public park, in a hummingbird nature garden. The hide is placed at the bottom of an interpretive sign stake. One must pull the interpretive sign out of the ground to find the attached bison tube. As evidence of why this shouldn't occur, one of the other interpretive signs was laying on the ground near the cactus it was supposed to identify. I spent 5 minutes with my kids trying to re-stake the sign, never once believing that the post to its left was the location of the cache. Intentionally placing a hide where you are required to deface the nature of a park, I feel, is inappropriate...

 

I agree with your assessment of this hide. Bad form all around for exactly why you have pointed out. It would be bad even if it was just the one sign.

[+ghettomedic]

Away from the electrical theme for a while. I DNF'd a hide last week and asked a friend where it was located. He told me where it was and I was disappointed that the hider had chosen this location.

 

The hide is in a public park, in a hummingbird nature garden. The hide is placed at the bottom of an interpretive sign stake. One must pull the interpretive sign out of the ground to find the attached bison tube. As evidence of why this shouldn't occur, one of the other interpretive signs was laying on the ground near the cactus it was supposed to identify. I spent 5 minutes with my kids trying to re-stake the sign, never once believing that the post to its left was the location of the cache. Intentionally placing a hide where you are required to deface the nature of a park, I feel, is inappropriate.

 

Mac Hammer

That is already covered under the guidelines:

aches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):

 

Caches on land managed by an agency that prohibits geocaches, such as the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges).

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

Caches placed in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans (examples may include archaeological or historic sites).

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

Caches near or on military installations.

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

Chlorine in the gene pool, that's what we need. And a bigger filter.

 

In my line of work we call that JOB SECURITY

[+TrailGators]

I think it's possible that the reviewer had better information than what's in these forums. However based on what's in the forums, I disagree that they should have made up their own guideline for enforcment. If it's worthy of bieng a guideline for one reviewer with the backing of this site, then it's worthy of being added to the overall guidelines. That it's not (or I missed that update) means that we now have a patchwork quilt of unwritten guidelines.

We've beaten this one to death already, but...

 

I agree that we don't know everything that IowaAdmin knew, but I always give Admins the benefit of the doubt. So based on that, I simply think that Admin was enforcing the permission guideline more strictly than others. IMHO, it was a gray area. So is it better to cut on the inside or the outside of a gray line? We are only talking about literally a handful of marginal caches in each area if you cut on the inside of the line. I don't buy the chicken little argument that this will lead to getting rid of tons of caches that clearly comply with the guidelines. However, I think that this conservative way of cutting would put Admins under more stress from some very rude people out there. So it probably isn't worth the hassle.

[+TrailGators]

As for seekers assume all risks. Yes they do. It would take a cacher placing a cache with malice to break that.

...or a really stupid person. I think a lot of times we take things as malice when they are really just stupidity.

[+BlueDeuce]

As for seekers assume all risks. Yes they do. It would take a cacher placing a cache with malice to break that.

...or a really stupid person. I think a lot of times we take things as malice when they are really just stupidity.

 

Nope, I've seen a couple malice caches and for one I was FT-seek. Fortunately the reviewer archived it quickly once I provided them with the information. (Fortunate meaning the reviewer was available and wasn't busy dealing with other real-life things)

Edited January 7, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[Mushtang]

I think it's possible that the reviewer had better information than what's in these forums. However based on what's in the forums, I disagree that they should have made up their own guideline for enforcment. If it's worthy of bieng a guideline for one reviewer with the backing of this site, then it's worthy of being added to the overall guidelines. That it's not (or I missed that update) means that we now have a patchwork quilt of unwritten guidelines.

We've beaten this one to death already, but...

 

I agree that we don't know everything that IowaAdmin knew, but I always give Admins the benefit of the doubt. So based on that, I simply think that Admin was enforcing the permission guideline more strictly than others. IMHO, it was a gray area. So is it better to cut on the inside or the outside of a gray line? We are only talking about literally a handful of marginal caches in each area if you cut on the inside of the line. I don't buy the chicken little argument that this will lead to getting rid of tons of caches that clearly comply with the guidelines. However, I think that this conservative way of cutting would put Admins under more stress from some very rude people out there. So it probably isn't worth the hassle.

No no no no no. Nothing in his post suggested that the reason he denied the cache had anything at all to do with permission. He ONLY refused to publish the cache, and subsequently archived a bunch of similar caches, because HE felt that the caches were too dangerous, and then falsely claimed it was a policy that was endorsed by Groundspeak.

 

Keystone has said, in this thread, that there are so many of these electrical themed caches that do have permission, that he published them all without even asking if permission has been granted.

 

People keep trying to offer solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

[+BlueDeuce]

I think it's possible that the reviewer had better information than what's in these forums. However based on what's in the forums, I disagree that they should have made up their own guideline for enforcment. If it's worthy of bieng a guideline for one reviewer with the backing of this site, then it's worthy of being added to the overall guidelines. That it's not (or I missed that update) means that we now have a patchwork quilt of unwritten guidelines.

We've beaten this one to death already, but...

 

I agree that we don't know everything that IowaAdmin knew, but I always give Admins the benefit of the doubt. So based on that, I simply think that Admin was enforcing the permission guideline more strictly than others. IMHO, it was a gray area. So is it better to cut on the inside or the outside of a gray line? We are only talking about literally a handful of marginal caches in each area if you cut on the inside of the line. I don't buy the chicken little argument that this will lead to getting rid of tons of caches that clearly comply with the guidelines. However, I think that this conservative way of cutting would put Admins under more stress from some very rude people out there. So it probably isn't worth the hassle.

No no no no no. Nothing in his post suggested that the reason he denied the cache had anything at all to do with permission. He ONLY refused to publish the cache, and subsequently archived a bunch of similar caches, because HE felt that the caches were too dangerous, and then falsely claimed it was a policy that was endorsed by Groundspeak.

 

Keystone has said, in this thread, that there are so many of these electrical themed caches that do have permission, that he published them all without even asking if permission has been granted.

 

People keep trying to offer solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

What an amazing insight on gc.com policy and the intentions of one of their reviewers. I suggest that anyone who has their cache un-approved by any reviewer take it up with Groundspeak. The people who actually set the policy.

 

Edited for clarification and changed admin to reviewer

Edited January 8, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+TrailGators]

I think it's possible that the reviewer had better information than what's in these forums. However based on what's in the forums, I disagree that they should have made up their own guideline for enforcment. If it's worthy of bieng a guideline for one reviewer with the backing of this site, then it's worthy of being added to the overall guidelines. That it's not (or I missed that update) means that we now have a patchwork quilt of unwritten guidelines.

We've beaten this one to death already, but...

 

I agree that we don't know everything that IowaAdmin knew, but I always give Admins the benefit of the doubt. So based on that, I simply think that Admin was enforcing the permission guideline more strictly than others. IMHO, it was a gray area. So is it better to cut on the inside or the outside of a gray line? We are only talking about literally a handful of marginal caches in each area if you cut on the inside of the line. I don't buy the chicken little argument that this will lead to getting rid of tons of caches that clearly comply with the guidelines. However, I think that this conservative way of cutting would put Admins under more stress from some very rude people out there. So it probably isn't worth the hassle.

No no no no no. Nothing in his post suggested that the reason he denied the cache had anything at all to do with permission. He ONLY refused to publish the cache, and subsequently archived a bunch of similar caches, because HE felt that the caches were too dangerous, and then falsely claimed it was a policy that was endorsed by Groundspeak.

 

Keystone has said, in this thread, that there are so many of these electrical themed caches that do have permission, that he published them all without even asking if permission has been granted.

 

People keep trying to offer solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

What is really interesting is that it really bugs you when people won't leave people alone and let them find whatever caches they desire to find and yet you often do not afford the same courtesy to people in this forum...

 

I have no idea why IowaAdmin did what he did and I doubt you do either. My point was that I think he may have had some ground to stand on with the permission portion of the guideline. Johnnygeo pointed this out in his blog. Permission is a pertinent topic to analyze in a thread about unacceptable caches.

 

Finally, whatever we discuss here has never resulted in a change on the website. So the reality is that we are not really solving any problem and we know it but we enjoy discussing it. So I think you are the one that is worried about something that will never happen....

Edited January 8, 2009 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

I think it's possible that the reviewer had better information than what's in these forums. However based on what's in the forums, I disagree that they should have made up their own guideline for enforcment. If it's worthy of bieng a guideline for one reviewer with the backing of this site, then it's worthy of being added to the overall guidelines. That it's not (or I missed that update) means that we now have a patchwork quilt of unwritten guidelines.

We've beaten this one to death already, but...

 

I agree that we don't know everything that IowaAdmin knew, but I always give Admins the benefit of the doubt. So based on that, I simply think that Admin was enforcing the permission guideline more strictly than others. IMHO, it was a gray area. So is it better to cut on the inside or the outside of a gray line? We are only talking about literally a handful of marginal caches in each area if you cut on the inside of the line. I don't buy the chicken little argument that this will lead to getting rid of tons of caches that clearly comply with the guidelines. However, I think that this conservative way of cutting would put Admins under more stress from some very rude people out there. So it probably isn't worth the hassle.

No no no no no. Nothing in his post suggested that the reason he denied the cache had anything at all to do with permission. He ONLY refused to publish the cache, and subsequently archived a bunch of similar caches, because HE felt that the caches were too dangerous, and then falsely claimed it was a policy that was endorsed by Groundspeak.

 

Keystone has said, in this thread, that there are so many of these electrical themed caches that do have permission, that he published them all without even asking if permission has been granted.

 

People keep trying to offer solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

What is really interesting is that it really bugs you when people won't leave people alone and let them find whatever caches they desire to find and yet you often do not afford the same courtesy to people in this forum...

This confuses me. I'm not affording you the courtesy to find whatever conclusions you want to about what people post? It sounds like even though you've read IA say he archived the cache because it was dangerous, you've choosen to believe it was because IA thought it didn't have permission. And yet you often accuse ME of twisting words. I'm baffled.

 

I have no idea why IowaAdmin did what he did and I doubt you do either.

I can't read his mind, true. So all I have to go on is what he's written, and that is that he archived the caches because he thought they were too dangerous.

 

My point was that I think he may have had some ground to stand on with the permission portion of the guideline.

Not according to Keystone, but maybe he did. What does it matter what he might have been able to use as a reason? The reason he gave was "too dangerous".

 

Johnnygeo pointed this out in his blog.

That blog discusses dangers of electricity and gives an example of someone's arm that has been burned from it, but the arm wasn't burned while geocaching. It doesn't give any examples of caches that are have resulted in someone getting hurt. It's about as useful as a blog discussing tidal waves and a picture of a wave crashing into a beach, as a way to warn against caches hidden on beaches.

 

Permission is an interesting topic to analyze and discuss in a fun discussion forum in a thread about unacceptable caches.

It sure is. Did you read the post from Keystone I linked to above?

 

Finally, whatever we discuss here has never resulted in a change on the website. So the reality is that we are not solving any problem and we know it. So I think you are the one that is worried about something that will never happen....

We're not solving a problem... because it doesn't exist. And no, I'm not worried about electical caches being banned. I'm discussing if they're dangerous or not.

[+TrailGators]

It sounds like even though you've read IA say he archived the cache because it was dangerous, you've choosen to believe it was because IA thought it didn't have permission. And yet you often accuse ME of twisting words. I'm baffled.

 

This is what I just wrote to clarify my point:

I have no idea why IowaAdmin did what he did and I doubt you do either. My point was that I think he may have had some ground to stand on with the permission portion of the guideline.

 

I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion after I just clarified my main point.

 

However, I will simplify it for you one more time: Caches with dubious permission are unacceptable to me.

Edited January 8, 2009 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

It sounds like even though you've read IA say he archived the cache because it was dangerous, you've choosen to believe it was because IA thought it didn't have permission. And yet you often accuse ME of twisting words. I'm baffled.

This is what I just wrote to clarify my point:

I have no idea why IowaAdmin did what he did and I doubt you do either. My point was that I think he may have had some ground to stand on with the permission portion of the guideline.

I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion after I just clarified my main point.

 

However, I will simplify it for you one more time: Caches with dubious permission are unacceptable to me.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion. I mistakenly understood you to believe "Iowa Admin thought the cache didn't have permission", but what you really thought was that he may have been okay to archive the caches based on "the permission portion of the guideline".

 

Sorry I misunderstood. It's crystal clear now.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Mushtang

[+TrailGators]

It sounds like even though you've read IA say he archived the cache because it was dangerous, you've choosen to believe it was because IA thought it didn't have permission. And yet you often accuse ME of twisting words. I'm baffled.

This is what I just wrote to clarify my point:

I have no idea why IowaAdmin did what he did and I doubt you do either. My point was that I think he may have had some ground to stand on with the permission portion of the guideline.

I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion after I just clarified my main point.

 

However, I will simplify it for you one more time: Caches with dubious permission are unacceptable to me.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion. I mistakenly understood you to believe "Iowa Admin thought the cache didn't have permission", but what you really thought was that he may have been okay to archive the caches based on "the permission portion of the guideline".

 

Sorry I misunderstood. It's crystal clear now.

Thanks.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

...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....

 

...-HHH

 

Phew! This thread has been getting into some very nit-picking arguments lately, and the thread is, overall, straying from the question asked by the OP in their original post. So, it is time to return this thread to the straight and narrow of its defined topic focus. Here goes:

 

I hate it when a geocache is placed in a very high radiation area within the reactor containment room at an active nuclear power plant, and I think that such hides should be prohibited by Groundspeak. The problems exhibited by such placements are manifold, and include:

• since finders are required to try to penetrate numerous fences and other barriers and also required to sneak past several layers of armed guards, the chances are rather high that a cacher may be electrocuted (i.e., by an electrified anti-personnel fence charged with a lethal voltage) or be shot to death by a guard who sees them. Thsi is bad, because then the cacher never gets to find the cache.
  
• ionizing radiation is invisible, and thus if a cache hunter forgot to bring along a good radiation monitor or radiation dosimeter, it is easily possible for the cache hunter to acquire a fatal dose of radiation exposure without even being aware of that fact, and then they might keel over dead while trying to log their find online at home a few hours after having found the cache. This is bad, because there is nothing more frustrating for a cacher than to die without having been able to complete an online find log, for this messes up their find stats.
  
• some of these caches, when emplaced within water-pool encased reactors, require that any prospective cache finder must -- after having penetrated the facility defenses and reached the containment room -- then swim across the reactor pool and then dive down into the depths to reach an access door. If the cacher is not a good swimmer or does not have good breath-holding capacity, they could easily drown. This is bad, because then the cacher never gets to find the cache.
  
• sometimes sneaky nasty owners or managers of nuclear power plant facilities have been known to do nasty sneaky things such as keep an eye on the cache listing page and then file felony criminal trespass charges against each and every cacher who claims a find on such a cache (i.e., in the afore-mentioned category) placed at their facility. This is highly unreasonable, because the hassle of being arrested, being imprisoned and having to stand trial can easily decrease the number of caches that a cacher can find each week, and cachers hate when that happens. Worse, being imprisoned or having to stand trial on felony charges can interfere with a cacher's ability to log online finds and online DNF's in a speedy fashion, and this adversely affects the entire geocaching community.
  

So, maybe Groundspeak should outlaw such caches!

Edited January 8, 2009 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+TrailGators]

• ionizing radiation is invisible, and thus if a cache hunter forgot to bring along a good radiation monitor or radiation dosimeter, it is easily possible for the cache hunter to acquire a fatal dose of radiation exposure without even being aware of that fact, and then they might keel over dead while trying to log their find online at home a few hours after having found the cache. This is bad, because there is nothing more frustrating for a cacher than to die without having been able to complete an online find log, for this messes up their find stats.
  

Not being able to log a cache because you die is unacceptable. So can we get Groundspeak to offer a Last Will and Testament logging service for these caches, so we can keep these caches?

[Clan Riffster]

Vinny, don't you own just such a cache? PUC-42, or something like that?

 

TG, since so many cachers treat this game like a religion, maybe those killed at Vinny's cache can simply log from heaven?

[+MariettaGecko]

...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....

 

...-HHH

 

So, maybe Groundspeak should outlaw such caches!

 

Ummm. Unless I misread the guidelines, they already are outlawed. The chances that the hider would be able to obtain permission to place such a cache are less than 0.

 

That said, I do note that the above post was rather tongue-in-cheek, but I just thought I had to respond to it anyway ;-)

 

Personally, micros in the woods (particularly where there are dozens or hundreds of places such could be hidden) are annoying to me, especially when there is no reason a small, regular, or perhaps even large cache couldn't be placed at or near the same location.

[+sbell111]

...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....

 

...-HHH

 

So, maybe Groundspeak should outlaw such caches!

 

Ummm. Unless I misread the guidelines, they already are outlawed. The chances that the hider would be able to obtain permission to place such a cache are less than 0. ...

The problem is, those arguing the 'con' side have been unable to accurately define exactly what types of caches in which locations that are referring to. The argument is all over the board to the point that I'm not sure if they are talking about LPCs, fake electrical boxes, caches attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air, caches magnetically attached or sitting next to that green box at the end of your driveway (next to the sidewalk) or caches in a bush ten feet from some electrical whatsit. Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Vinny, don't you own just such a cache? PUC-42, or something like that?

No, I do not own such a cache; I own no caches located in the containment building at any active operational nuclear reactor. Rather, the only "nuclear" or "radioactive" cache which I own is Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulatons, which is a rather tame placement, as the final stage of this extreme 5/5 multi-stage cache is located -- with full permission of relevant local authorities -- in the abandoned and largely-decommissioned containment building of an abandoned nuclear civilian/commercial research reactor dating back to the early 1960s. However, due to the bankruptcy of the original firm which had owned the reactor and due to limited federal funds for cleanup in the years since then, the interior of the containment building is still somewhat contaminated with both radioactive waste and toxic chemical waste, and, as is true for many sites in that rural valley, the entire site is also overridden by rodents carrying hantavirus, the plague organism (i.e., Yersina Pestis), Babesiosis, and Rocky Moiuntain Spotted Fever.

 

Due to the dangers inherent at the site, this cache has been rated 5/5, and the final two stages are only available to select pre-screened geocachers who have met a number of prerequisite screening requirements; seekers at the final stage are also required to wear Tyvek protective bunny suits and PAPR respirators to help protect against radioactive and toxic dusts, mud and sludge, and are required to carry portable radiation monitors.

 

TG, since so many cachers treat this game like a religion, maybe those killed at Vinny's cache can simply log from heaven?

 

Please allow me to set the record straight: Despite the existence of a few rumors and myths which occasionally fly around the geocaching world which claim that a few seekers of this cache have grown very ill or have died, the simple and straightforward truth is, to my best knowledge, that no seekers who have completed the third/final stage have ever died as a result of their foray into the chamber, and even the cases of serious illness due to forays by geocachers into the chamber have been very few, and each of those who were so affected have fully recovered, and none of those who had grown seriously ill place any blame on their exposure at the final stage of the cache, but rather upon their own pre-existing poor health status.

 

 

.

[+Too Tall John]

The problem is, those arguing the 'con' side have been unable to accurately define exactly what types of caches in which locations that are referring to. The argument is all over the board to the point that I'm not sure if they are talking about LPCs, fake electrical boxes, caches attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air, caches magnetically attached or sitting next to that green box at the end of your driveway (next to the sidewalk) or caches in a bush ten feet from some electrical whatsit. Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission.

So, first, you say that people can't define what it is they are arguing about, but then you say that people have received permission for such hides. If it's a undefinable (or at least undefined) type of hide, how can you possibly say that people have received permission, since there is no definition of what you are talking about?

 

In addition to being confusingly contradictory, your post full of rhetoric. I'll take caches "attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air," for an example. Sounds utterly ridiculous, right? That's exactly what you are trying to do, make it sound silly. Contrasted to "Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission." Once again, you are calling into question permission on a group of caches that you cannot define. A bogus argument. Also, your use of "many" implies that it is the norm that such caches have received explicit permission. I think most all here would agree that explicit permission on a LPC is more the exception than the rule.

 

Perhaps a little clarification might help out your confused statements.

 

In all locations that I have heard about, any structure placed by a utility company are regulated and off limits for attaching anything to them. You would not receive permission from any utility I have heard of to place anything (including those blasted "Yard Sale" signs) on a piece of their equipment. I don't have the time to research this for each of the 50 states, so I welcome someone to present evidence that such a hide is allowable. For where I live, and anyplace I've heard about, it just plain isn't going to happen.

 

Permission has been granted, in some cases, for a cache to be hidden on a light pole. I do believe this is the type of hide Keystone was referring to when he said that explicit permission had been received.

[+TrailGators]

The problem is, those arguing the 'con' side have been unable to accurately define exactly what types of caches in which locations that are referring to. The argument is all over the board to the point that I'm not sure if they are talking about LPCs, fake electrical boxes, caches attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air, caches magnetically attached or sitting next to that green box at the end of your driveway (next to the sidewalk) or caches in a bush ten feet from some electrical whatsit. Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission.

So, first, you say that people can't define what it is they are arguing about, but then you say that people have received permission for such hides. If it's a undefinable (or at least undefined) type of hide, how can you possibly say that people have received permission, since there is no definition of what you are talking about?

 

In addition to being confusingly contradictory, your post full of rhetoric. I'll take caches "attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air," for an example. Sounds utterly ridiculous, right? That's exactly what you are trying to do, make it sound silly. Contrasted to "Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission." Once again, you are calling into question permission on a group of caches that you cannot define. A bogus argument. Also, your use of "many" implies that it is the norm that such caches have received explicit permission. I think most all here would agree that explicit permission on a LPC is more the exception than the rule.

 

Perhaps a little clarification might help out your confused statements.

 

In all locations that I have heard about, any structure placed by a utility company are regulated and off limits for attaching anything to them. You would not receive permission from any utility I have heard of to place anything (including those blasted "Yard Sale" signs) on a piece of their equipment. I don't have the time to research this for each of the 50 states, so I welcome someone to present evidence that such a hide is allowable. For where I live, and anyplace I've heard about, it just plain isn't going to happen.

 

Permission has been granted, in some cases, for a cache to be hidden on a light pole. I do believe this is the type of hide Keystone was referring to when he said that explicit permission had been received.

I couldn't have said it better Too Tall.

[+TrailGators]

Vinny, don't you own just such a cache? PUC-42, or something like that?

No, I do not own such a cache; I own no caches located in the containment building at any active operational nuclear reactor. Rather, the only "nuclear" or "radioactive" cache which I own is Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulatons, which is a rather tame placement, as the final stage of this extreme 5/5 multi-stage cache is located -- with full permission of relevant local authorities -- in the abandoned and largely-decommissioned containment building of an abandoned nuclear civilian/commercial research reactor dating back to the early 1960s. However, due to the bankruptcy of the original firm which had owned the reactor and due to limited federal funds for cleanup in the years since then, the interior of the containment building is still somewhat contaminated with both radioactive waste and toxic chemical waste, and, as is true for many sites in that rural valley, the entire site is also overridden by rodents carrying hantavirus, the plague organism (i.e., Yersina Pestis), Babesiosis, and Rocky Moiuntain Spotted Fever.

 

Due to the dangers inherent at the site, this cache has been rated 5/5, and the final two stages are only available to select pre-screened geocachers who have met a number of prerequisite screening requirements; seekers at the final stage are also required to wear Tyvek protective bunny suits and PAPR respirators to help protect against radioactive and toxic dusts, mud and sludge, and are required to carry portable radiation monitors.

 

TG, since so many cachers treat this game like a religion, maybe those killed at Vinny's cache can simply log from heaven?

 

Please allow me to set the record straight: Despite the existence of a few rumors and myths which occasionally fly around the geocaching world which claim that a few seekers of this cache have grown very ill or have died, the simple and straightforward truth is, to my best knowledge, that no seekers who have completed the third/final stage have ever died as a result of their foray into the chamber, and even the cases of serious illness due to forays by geocachers into the chamber have been very few, and each of those who were so affected have fully recovered, and none of those who had grown seriously ill place any blame on their exposure at the final stage of the cache, but rather upon their own pre-existing poor health status.

 

So the Tyvek protective bunny suits must be very effective at protecting those brave cachers that attempt these caches.

[+sbell111]

The problem is, those arguing the 'con' side have been unable to accurately define exactly what types of caches in which locations that are referring to. The argument is all over the board to the point that I'm not sure if they are talking about LPCs, fake electrical boxes, caches attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air, caches magnetically attached or sitting next to that green box at the end of your driveway (next to the sidewalk) or caches in a bush ten feet from some electrical whatsit. Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission.

So, first, you say that people can't define what it is they are arguing about, but then you say that people have received permission for such hides. If it's a undefinable (or at least undefined) type of hide, how can you possibly say that people have received permission, since there is no definition of what you are talking about?

 

In addition to being confusingly contradictory, your post full of rhetoric. I'll take caches "attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air," for an example. Sounds utterly ridiculous, right? That's exactly what you are trying to do, make it sound silly. Contrasted to "Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission." Once again, you are calling into question permission on a group of caches that you cannot define. A bogus argument. Also, your use of "many" implies that it is the norm that such caches have received explicit permission. I think most all here would agree that explicit permission on a LPC is more the exception than the rule.

 

Perhaps a little clarification might help out your confused statements.

 

In all locations that I have heard about, any structure placed by a utility company are regulated and off limits for attaching anything to them. You would not receive permission from any utility I have heard of to place anything (including those blasted "Yard Sale" signs) on a piece of their equipment. I don't have the time to research this for each of the 50 states, so I welcome someone to present evidence that such a hide is allowable. For where I live, and anyplace I've heard about, it just plain isn't going to happen.

 

Permission has been granted, in some cases, for a cache to be hidden on a light pole. I do believe this is the type of hide Keystone was referring to when he said that explicit permission had been received.

I couldn't have said it better Too Tall.

If you guys don't like the fact that I stated that you haven't defined these dangerous objects well enough, then tell us exactly what you are referring to, rather taking a 'scattergun' approach to the issue. I listed some stuff in my post. Are any of those things what you are referring to? What are some things that are stuck in your craw that I didn't list?

 

Honestly, you guys have been all over the board in this thread and the others.

Edited January 8, 2009 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

The problem is, those arguing the 'con' side have been unable to accurately define exactly what types of caches in which locations that are referring to. The argument is all over the board to the point that I'm not sure if they are talking about LPCs, fake electrical boxes, caches attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air, caches magnetically attached or sitting next to that green box at the end of your driveway (next to the sidewalk) or caches in a bush ten feet from some electrical whatsit. Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission.

So, first, you say that people can't define what it is they are arguing about, but then you say that people have received permission for such hides. If it's a undefinable (or at least undefined) type of hide, how can you possibly say that people have received permission, since there is no definition of what you are talking about?

I didn't have any problem reading sbell111's post. The issue is that what is unacceptable to different people is different. When we have discussed particular hides here different people may find this unacceptable for different reasons. Thus it is sometimes difficult to follow the argument when one person says there is a safety issue, another says it is a permission issue, and yet another simply feels that this type of hide is not very original. Some people seem to change the reason they feel that a cache is unacceptable depending on their mood and what the last poster said.

 

Without clearly defining what is utility company property and and what constitutes attaching something to that property quoting some company's stated policy about attaching things to their equipment does not constitute proof that explicit permission is required in all cases nor that it would never be given. Clearly these companies do not want their poles or boxes to be used as billboards for yard sales or lost puppies. And perhaps they even have a legitimate safety concern - not with people touching the equipment but with the signs and attachments interfering with the lineman's ability to work on the equipment safely. Depending on the way a particular company's policy is written it may be that attaching something that does not interfere with the function of the equipment or the ability of utility company employees to work on the equipment would require explicit permission. I have found nanos on the guy-wires supporting a telephone pole. These are unobtrusive and don't interfere with workers who may need to climb the pole. I suppose they belong to the power company but wonder if you really need to get permission to leave these. Would an ammo can painted to match a transformer box and left on the ground right next to the box require explicit permission?

[+TrailGators]

The problem is, those arguing the 'con' side have been unable to accurately define exactly what types of caches in which locations that are referring to. The argument is all over the board to the point that I'm not sure if they are talking about LPCs, fake electrical boxes, caches attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air, caches magnetically attached or sitting next to that green box at the end of your driveway (next to the sidewalk) or caches in a bush ten feet from some electrical whatsit. Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission.

So, first, you say that people can't define what it is they are arguing about, but then you say that people have received permission for such hides. If it's a undefinable (or at least undefined) type of hide, how can you possibly say that people have received permission, since there is no definition of what you are talking about?

 

In addition to being confusingly contradictory, your post full of rhetoric. I'll take caches "attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air," for an example. Sounds utterly ridiculous, right? That's exactly what you are trying to do, make it sound silly. Contrasted to "Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission." Once again, you are calling into question permission on a group of caches that you cannot define. A bogus argument. Also, your use of "many" implies that it is the norm that such caches have received explicit permission. I think most all here would agree that explicit permission on a LPC is more the exception than the rule.

 

Perhaps a little clarification might help out your confused statements.

 

In all locations that I have heard about, any structure placed by a utility company are regulated and off limits for attaching anything to them. You would not receive permission from any utility I have heard of to place anything (including those blasted "Yard Sale" signs) on a piece of their equipment. I don't have the time to research this for each of the 50 states, so I welcome someone to present evidence that such a hide is allowable. For where I live, and anyplace I've heard about, it just plain isn't going to happen.

 

Permission has been granted, in some cases, for a cache to be hidden on a light pole. I do believe this is the type of hide Keystone was referring to when he said that explicit permission had been received.

I couldn't have said it better Too Tall.

If you guys don't like the fact that I stated that you haven't defined these dangerous objects well enough, then tell us exactly what you are referring to, rather taking a 'scattergun' approach to the issue. I listed some stuff in my post. Are any of those things what you are referring to? What are some things that are stuck in your craw that I didn't list?

 

Honestly, you guys have been all over the board in this thread and the others.

This was explained earlier. There are several examples in Johnnygeos blog. So pick the riskiest one in the realm of possible cache locations and we can discuss adequate permission for that example. If permission holds for the riskiest example than it should hold for all the others.

[+bflentje]

Jeez, why don't you all just shut up. Who moderates this kind of crap?

[+Too Tall John]

Jeez, why don't you all just shut up. Who moderates this kind of crap?

Apparently, people with a little more restraint than others, who apparently are compelled to read something that obviously bugs them.

[+bflentje]

Jeez, why don't you all just shut up. Who moderates this kind of crap?

Apparently, people with a little more restraint than others, who apparently are compelled to read something that obviously bugs them.

 

Point taken AND point proven. Now back to the original topic.

[+SALUKIS97]

I would find it unacceptable if I opened a cache and it was filled with poop.

[+Too Tall John]

If you guys don't like the fact that I stated that you haven't defined these dangerous objects well enough, then tell us exactly what you are referring to, rather taking a 'scattergun' approach to the issue. I listed some stuff in my post. Are any of those things what you are referring to? What are some things that are stuck in your craw that I didn't list?

What I have "stuck in my craw" is that I answer you question, then you repeatedly ask it again and agian and again. It seems to be one of your favorite tactics.

 

Does this post ring a bell?

I see utility poles depicted in this picture more than once. Transformers are mentioned several times in the article. Perhaps this would be a good start on objects to avoid?

So, my simple answer is:

• Utility Poles
  
• Transformers
  
• Equipment Associated with Utility Poles and Transformers.
  

These are what I would consider

 

Groundspeak Forums > General Geocaching Discussions > Geocaching Topics > Unacceptable Cache Hides - In My Opinion

Edited January 8, 2009 by Too Tall John

[Mushtang]

Jeez, why don't you all just shut up. Who moderates this kind of crap?

Something tells me you're going to be moderated. Heh.

[Mushtang]

So, my simple answer is:

• Utility Poles
  
• Transformers
  
• Equipment Associated with Utility Poles and Transformers.
  

These are what I would consider Unacceptable Cache Hides - In My Opinion

Are these unacceptable to you:

• As a hider only
  
• Both as a hider and as a finder
  
• Because of risk of injury
  
• Because they're against guidelines?
  

[+Too Tall John]

So, my simple answer is:

• Utility Poles
  
• Transformers
  
• Equipment Associated with Utility Poles and Transformers.
  

These are what I would consider Unacceptable Cache Hides - In My Opinion

Are these unacceptable to you:

• As a hider only
  
• Both as a hider and as a finder
  
• Because of risk of injury
  
• Because they're against guidelines?
  

They are unacceptable to me as a hider and a finder because they are not permitted by any utility known to me, thus making them against guidelines due to permission. To the best of my understanding, utility companies do not permit attachments because of safety issues, for both those who would come in contact with the pole because of the attachment, and for the utility workers themselves who have to deal with it.

 

So, to answer your bullets:

 

Yes.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Too Tall John

[Mushtang]

So, my simple answer is:

• Utility Poles
  
• Transformers
  
• Equipment Associated with Utility Poles and Transformers.
  

These are what I would consider Unacceptable Cache Hides - In My Opinion

Are these unacceptable to you:

• As a hider only
  
• Both as a hider and as a finder
  
• Because of risk of injury
  
• Because they're against guidelines?
  

They are unacceptable to me as a hider and a finder because they are not permitted by any utility known to me, thus making them against guidelines due to permission. To the best of my understanding, utility companies do not permit attachments because of safety issues, for both those who would come in contact with the pole because of the attachment, and for the utility workers themselves who have to deal with it.

 

So, to answer your bullets:

 

Yes.

So basically it's a guidelines issue for you and not a safety issue. You did say that you thought it was a safety issue for the power company, and that's why you didn't think they'd issue permission, but you didn't say it was because you thought the risk of danger was too high.

 

So since it's a permission/guidelines issue for you, what if you found out about a cache on a transformer and you were told that the reviewer saw explicit permission before they published the cache page. Would that be okay with you?

[+Too Tall John]

I have found nanos on the guy-wires supporting a telephone pole. These are unobtrusive and don't interfere with workers who may need to climb the pole. I suppose they belong to the power company but wonder if you really need to get permission to leave these.

I believe a utility worker has chimed in and mentioned that the yellow PVC tubing on these lines is there to insulate the average passer-by from being electrified by touching one if the line becomes electrified. I'd imagine that means there is some level of risk, thus I doubt the company would say "Yes." If they did, and something were to happen, the conversation in the courtroom would sound like this:

 

Zapper Family's Lawyer: So, the deceased, Frank Zapper, got electrocuted while retrieving a geocache from one of your utility pole guy-wires. What was the cache doing on your wire?

Power Company Guy: Well, George Cacher came to us and asked if he could put it there. We said "Yes."

ZFL: It says here that the container was tucked up inside the protective covering on the wire. What is that covering there to protect?

P.C.G. Well, it is there to prevent people from coming in contact with the wire if it inadvertently becomes electrified.

ZFL: