What about a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler caches

[+Sol seaker]

This week I went out caching and came across the second sprinkler in one week that had been "geo-trashed" by someone thinking it was a geo-cache. I can see this problem only growing as more people become aware that some people are using fake sprinklers as a geo cache. They actually are real sprinklers with their insides removed. I've seen them in use. They are very ingenious. But it seems they are leading to the destruction of public property inadventantly at this point. Once apart, they are very hard to get back together (I tried, I can't do it).

 

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

any other feedback?

[+Cache O'Plenty]

It may be a local problem for you. I've found numerous of these kinds of caches and have never found one "trashed". They can be "checked" for caches pretty easily by merely gripping the riser portion (use opposing fingernails) and pulling up. If you detect the spring, then it's a real sprinkler. And they can be reassembled. What is needed is to educate cachers not to "disassemble" anything or trash any public propery.

[+Sol seaker]

It may be a local problem for you. I've found numerous of these kinds of caches and have never found one "trashed". They can be "checked" for caches pretty easily by merely gripping the riser portion (use opposing fingernails) and pulling up. If you detect the spring, then it's a real sprinkler. And they can be reassembled. What is needed is to educate cachers not to "disassemble" anything or trash any public propery.

 

and perhaps educate them on putting them back together if it does happen.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us and I can return to those caches to repair someone's damage.

[+mfamilee]

We've never come across a sprinkler cache yet, or even checked one.

 

Maybe that explains some of our DNFs.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

It may be a local problem for you. I've found numerous of these kinds of caches and have never found one "trashed". They can be "checked" for caches pretty easily by merely gripping the riser portion (use opposing fingernails) and pulling up. If you detect the spring, then it's a real sprinkler. And they can be reassembled. What is needed is to educate cachers not to "disassemble" anything or trash any public propery.

 

and perhaps educate them on putting them back together if it does happen.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us and I can return to those caches to repair someone's damage.

Get a new one from the store and disassemble it. Then put it back together. There aren't that many parts.

[+hydnsek]

One of my first caches six years ago in California was in a sprinkler head. It's not a new technique, and damage can occur if the hider places a cache (sprinkler or other) near real sprinkler heads. I think many of us avoid placing this type of cache today based on past problems. Even if you don't break the sprinkler, you can leave it aimed the wrong way if you aren't careful.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It may be a local problem for you. I've found numerous of these kinds of caches and have never found one "trashed". They can be "checked" for caches pretty easily by merely gripping the riser portion (use opposing fingernails) and pulling up. If you detect the spring, then it's a real sprinkler. And they can be reassembled. What is needed is to educate cachers not to "disassemble" anything or trash any public propery.

 

and perhaps educate them on putting them back together if it does happen.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us and I can return to those caches to repair someone's damage.

Get a new one from the store and disassemble it. Then put it back together. There aren't that many parts.

 

Nt all sprinklers are cheap or easy to fix like those available in stores, breaking a good sprinkler is MUCH costlier and yes, moving them can be a problem as well!! I am against these types of hides as well as a few others I have talked about in the past!

[Clan Riffster]

Personally, I think it'd be a lot more effective to have a moratorium on stupidity.

I can check every sprinkler head in a Wally World parking lot and you'd never know I was there.

BillyBobNosePicker can come along behind me and break every one because he's not bright enough to check them carefully.

In that case, it's not the sprinkler head caches that are causing the problems.

Rather, it's the heavy handed searchers.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+Rockin Roddy]

Personally, I think it'd be a lot more effective to have a moratorium on stupidity.

I can check every sprinkler head in a Wally World parking lot and you'd never know I was there.

BillyBobNosePicker can come along behind me and break every one because he's not bright enough to check them carefully.

In that case, it's not the sprinkler head caches that are causing the problems.

Rather, it's the heavy handed searchers.

 

While true, this is impossible.

[+WebChimp]

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

I've placed one sprinkler head container, but it was in a place where there was no sprinkler system, so there was no chance of damage.

 

I think it is more an issue with the manner people use to look for caches, rather than the method used for hiding caches. A thoughtless searcher can tear up almost anything.

[+Rockin Roddy]

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

I've placed one sprinkler head container, but it was in a place where there was no sprinkler system, so there was no chance of damage.

 

I think it is more an issue with the manner people use to look for caches, rather than the method used for hiding caches. A thoughtless searcher can tear up almost anything.

 

Of course, inviting people to look into places where they really shouldn't be isn't helpng much either! Without the invent of this type of hide, I doubt people would be breaking sprinkler heads!

[+sbell111]

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

I've placed one sprinkler head container, but it was in a place where there was no sprinkler system, so there was no chance of damage.

 

I think it is more an issue with the manner people use to look for caches, rather than the method used for hiding caches. A thoughtless searcher can tear up almost anything.

 

Of course, inviting people to look into places where they really shouldn't be isn't helpng much either! Without the invent of this type of hide, I doubt people would be breaking sprinkler heads!

Not only is that position undefendable, but it hasn't been shown that real sprinkler heads actually broken by cachers is a widespread phenomenon. Personally, I have never found a broken sprinkler head while looking for a cache.

[+rob3k]

We've never come across a sprinkler cache yet, or even checked one.

 

Maybe that explains some of our DNFs.

 

I had the exact same thought!

 

I'd hate to mess up a sprinkler system checking them, though.

[+Rockin Roddy]

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

I've placed one sprinkler head container, but it was in a place where there was no sprinkler system, so there was no chance of damage.

 

I think it is more an issue with the manner people use to look for caches, rather than the method used for hiding caches. A thoughtless searcher can tear up almost anything.

 

Of course, inviting people to look into places where they really shouldn't be isn't helpng much either! Without the invent of this type of hide, I doubt people would be breaking sprinkler heads!

Not only is that position undefendable, but it hasn't been shown that real sprinkler heads actually broken by cachers is a widespread phenomenon. Personally, I have never found a broken sprinkler head while looking for a cache.

 

I've seen them personally. Maybe not even widespread, but I'd hate to see it become widespread since this would certainly become a problem with landowners and the caching community. Undefendable? Maybe, maybe not...how many cachers do you suppose would bother with a sprinkler unless they thought the cache could possibly be there??

 

If hiding a cache somewhere near a real sprinkler head, you could always post there's no need to look in the sprinklers!

[+gof1]

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

I've placed one sprinkler head container, but it was in a place where there was no sprinkler system, so there was no chance of damage.

 

I think it is more an issue with the manner people use to look for caches, rather than the method used for hiding caches. A thoughtless searcher can tear up almost anything.

 

Of course, inviting people to look into places where they really shouldn't be isn't helpng much either! Without the invent of this type of hide, I doubt people would be breaking sprinkler heads!

Not only is that position undefendable, but it hasn't been shown that real sprinkler heads actually broken by cachers is a widespread phenomenon. Personally, I have never found a broken sprinkler head while looking for a cache.

 

I understand your position and agree, to a point. The thing is that even if not wide spread it does happen. We can't blame every incident on cachers but also can't ignore that these things happen. The truth and the answer often lie between the extremes. As seekers we need to take care not to damage things while we are searching. As hiders we need to consider the added wear and tear on the area in which we place our caches.

 

Should we do away with this type of cache? Probably not. We should be careful where we put 'em though. Keep in mind that any difficult cache hidden near sprinkler heads could have cachers searching them. Until they find the cache they have no way of knowing if the sprinklers conceal it or not. A bison tube in a well executed fake rock in the same area could have the same results, assuming it was cachers. If it wasn't an ammo can in plain sight wouldn't have saved the sprinklers.

[+gof1]

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

I've placed one sprinkler head container, but it was in a place where there was no sprinkler system, so there was no chance of damage.

 

I think it is more an issue with the manner people use to look for caches, rather than the method used for hiding caches. A thoughtless searcher can tear up almost anything.

 

Of course, inviting people to look into places where they really shouldn't be isn't helpng much either! Without the invent of this type of hide, I doubt people would be breaking sprinkler heads!

Not only is that position undefendable, but it hasn't been shown that real sprinkler heads actually broken by cachers is a widespread phenomenon. Personally, I have never found a broken sprinkler head while looking for a cache.

 

I've seen them personally. Maybe not even widespread, but I'd hate to see it become widespread since this would certainly become a problem with landowners and the caching community. Undefendable? Maybe, maybe not...how many cachers do you suppose would bother with a sprinkler unless they thought the cache could possibly be there??

 

If hiding a cache somewhere near a real sprinkler head, you could always post there's no need to look in the sprinklers!

 

You can't put something on the cache page and really believe that every cacher is going to see it, can you? How many time have we talked about the fact that so many people hunt caches without reading descriptions? I'm not saying don't put the info on the cache page, just don't think that it alone will protect the sprinkler heads.

[+Team CeDo]

Ironically enough, we have used the sprinkler hide technique twice, back in SRQ where we 1st started caching and it was the 1st one of it's kind in that area so it was a great success-never had a maint issue or a problem. 3 years later they are everywhere so we thought we would try it again-MISTAKE!!!! We just had an issue with the sprinkler cache being burried and there a question about whether or not the cache had actually been found by a new non-PM. They logged a find after the cache had been disabled for several days. Once I saw the email notification that someone found the cache I ran right to the cache site to see what was going on: what we found was a brand new working sprinkler in it's place that was torn apart and laying all over the ground-cant say who did it, but someone did and I am glad I was there to put it back together. All the other sprinklers were intact around the whole fountain area except the new one that was right next to GZ and our cache sprinkler head was nowhere in site. I was ever so kindly informed that my sprinkler was burried-BURRIED i questioned? sure would have been nice to know that the day they found the cache (a needs maint log would have been helpful or hey maybe even a personal email stating/questioning/complaining the cache was burried), so once again we went back to the cache site with shovels in hand-NO CACHE. Unfortunately this turned into an exculated situation that has since been resolved. So in order to keep down on the traffic to that area and to make sure no one takes apart the working sprinkler heads in our neighborhood that we pay for, we have made the series of caches for PM only and replaced the cache with a different container.

 

 

We will NOT be using sprinkler heads again. Shame it had to end up this way because it was a neat idea, we had gotten great reviews about it in the past, and now there is just too much destruction... Those of us that do good and follow the rules definitely dont need a bad name nor does geocaching as a whole

 

RIP sprinkler caches

 

 

(Mrs) Team CeDo

[Clan Riffster]

While true, this is impossible.

Could be. Personally, I'm not a fan of cache containers that have an increased potential for getting people to do dumb things. (Heck, I do enough dumb things all on my own!) This includes sprinkler heads, electrical boxes, etc. I wouldn't support a moratorium on them simply because I prefer education to legislation. I think that teaching folks why a particular container may be a bad idea would go a lot farther toward preventing future damage than trying to ban them. Once a person is educated regarding issues they may not have considered at the time of placement, they will often apply that knowledge to the benefit of everyone.

[+Team CeDo]

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

I've placed one sprinkler head container, but it was in a place where there was no sprinkler system, so there was no chance of damage.

 

I think it is more an issue with the manner people use to look for caches, rather than the method used for hiding caches. A thoughtless searcher can tear up almost anything.

 

Of course, inviting people to look into places where they really shouldn't be isn't helpng much either! Without the invent of this type of hide, I doubt people would be breaking sprinkler heads!

Not only is that position undefendable, but it hasn't been shown that real sprinkler heads actually broken by cachers is a widespread phenomenon. Personally, I have never found a broken sprinkler head while looking for a cache.

 

I've seen them personally. Maybe not even widespread, but I'd hate to see it become widespread since this would certainly become a problem with landowners and the caching community. Undefendable? Maybe, maybe not...how many cachers do you suppose would bother with a sprinkler unless they thought the cache could possibly be there??

 

If hiding a cache somewhere near a real sprinkler head, you could always post there's no need to look in the sprinklers!

 

You can't put something on the cache page and really believe that every cacher is going to see it, can you? How many time have we talked about the fact that so many people hunt caches without reading descriptions? I'm not saying don't put the info on the cache page, just don't think that it alone will protect the sprinkler heads.

 

 

 

Exactly!! Our cache was disabled and yet someone was out there days afterwards trying to find it, they didnt read the cache page at all-obviously. The key to hiding is location......

[+gof1]

While true, this is impossible.

Could be. Personally, I'm not a fan of cache containers that have an increased potential for getting people to do dumb things. (Heck, I do enough dumb things all on my own!) This includes sprinkler heads, electrical boxes, etc. I wouldn't support a moratorium on them simply because I prefer education to legislation. I think that teaching folks why a particular container may be a bad idea would go a lot farther toward preventing future damage than trying to ban them. Once a person is educated regarding issues they may not have considered at the time of placement, they will often apply that knowledge to the benefit of everyone.

 

No problem with any of those containers. Just put 'em in odd places. A sprinkler head two miles from the nearest water supply in a desert would make my day. An outlet on the side of a tree in the woods sounds like fun.

[+bflentje]

This week I went out caching and came across the second sprinkler in one week that had been "geo-trashed" by someone thinking it was a geo-cache. I can see this problem only growing as more people become aware that some people are using fake sprinklers as a geo cache. They actually are real sprinklers with their insides removed. I've seen them in use. They are very ingenious. But it seems they are leading to the destruction of public property inadventantly at this point. Once apart, they are very hard to get back together (I tried, I can't do it).

 

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

any other feedback?

 

How on earth can you prove it was caused by a cacher? I've seen many sprinkler heads destroyed by lawn mowers, snow plows, vandals by muggles, explosion by freezing from improper winterizing. I agree with the Riffster to just have a moratorium on stupidity. Even if you come across a real sprinkler while searching, you'll know pretty quickly that it isn't a cache if you have any brains.

[+gof1]

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

I've placed one sprinkler head container, but it was in a place where there was no sprinkler system, so there was no chance of damage.

 

I think it is more an issue with the manner people use to look for caches, rather than the method used for hiding caches. A thoughtless searcher can tear up almost anything.

 

Of course, inviting people to look into places where they really shouldn't be isn't helpng much either! Without the invent of this type of hide, I doubt people would be breaking sprinkler heads!

Not only is that position undefendable, but it hasn't been shown that real sprinkler heads actually broken by cachers is a widespread phenomenon. Personally, I have never found a broken sprinkler head while looking for a cache.

 

I've seen them personally. Maybe not even widespread, but I'd hate to see it become widespread since this would certainly become a problem with landowners and the caching community. Undefendable? Maybe, maybe not...how many cachers do you suppose would bother with a sprinkler unless they thought the cache could possibly be there??

 

If hiding a cache somewhere near a real sprinkler head, you could always post there's no need to look in the sprinklers!

 

You can't put something on the cache page and really believe that every cacher is going to see it, can you? How many time have we talked about the fact that so many people hunt caches without reading descriptions? I'm not saying don't put the info on the cache page, just don't think that it alone will protect the sprinkler heads.

 

 

 

Exactly!! Our cache was disabled and yet someone was out there days afterwards trying to find it, they didnt read the cache page at all-obviously. The key to hiding is location......

 

Days after doesn't mean they didn't read the page. They my have downloaded the page days ago.

[+Too Tall John]

I have never personally found a SPrinkler HEad CacHe (SPHECH), but since I keep seeing threads pop up complaining about them, I hereby declare a

 

Voluntary Moratorium on Sprinkler Head Caches (SPHECHs)!!

 

All cachers are called upon to stop hunting and hiding SPHECHs. Within a voluntary time period of 2 weeks from today, all participants in this Voluntary Moratorium should archive their SPHECHs.

 

Thank you in advance for your participation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why isn't anyone listening to me?

 

[+gof1]

 

 

Why isn't anyone listening to me?

 

 

Um, sorry, what?

[+Team CeDo]

I have never personally found a SPrinkler HEad CacHe (SPHECH), but since I keep seeing threads pop up complaining about them, I hereby declare a

 

Voluntary Moratorium on Sprinkler Head Caches (SPHECHs)!!

 

All cachers are called upon to stop hunting and hiding SPHECHs. Within a voluntary time period of 2 weeks from today, all participants in this Voluntary Moratorium should archive their SPHECHs.

 

Thank you in advance for your participation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why isn't anyone listening to me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't forget you can always change the cache container to something else....I would hate to see a bunch of caches get archived

Edited April 17, 2009 by Team CeDo

[+sbell111]

... how many cachers do you suppose would bother with a sprinkler unless they thought the cache could possibly be there??

Ummm... Every cacher who has ever found a sprinkler head cache once 'bothered' a sprinkler head without ever having found one before. Also, every cacher is trained to imagine a cache being anything, anywhere. Any object that could hold a log is looked at as if 'the cache could possible be there'.

[+deercreekth]

Exactly!! Our cache was disabled and yet someone was out there days afterwards trying to find it, they didnt read the cache page at all-obviously. The key to hiding is location......

 

Sounds like one of the curses of having an old PQ. Until this morning most of the caches on my PN-40 came from a PQ I ran 2 months ago. So while I had the full description and logs... they were two months old. There are some archived or disabled caches in my area I'd still see as good to go. I'm sure that's a common scenario.

[+Team Cotati]

While true, this is impossible.

Could be. Personally, I'm not a fan of cache containers that have an increased potential for getting people to do dumb things. (Heck, I do enough dumb things all on my own!) This includes sprinkler heads, electrical boxes, etc. I wouldn't support a moratorium on them simply because I prefer education to legislation. I think that teaching folks why a particular container may be a bad idea would go a lot farther toward preventing future damage than trying to ban them. Once a person is educated regarding issues they may not have considered at the time of placement, they will often apply that knowledge to the benefit of everyone.

 

Quite right. I've seen hundreds of examples of that. Over all there has been a noticeable improvement in improperly placed caches.

 

Thank you very much for your efforts.

[+gof1]

Exactly!! Our cache was disabled and yet someone was out there days afterwards trying to find it, they didnt read the cache page at all-obviously. The key to hiding is location......

 

Sounds like one of the curses of having an old PQ. Until this morning most of the caches on my PN-40 came from a PQ I ran 2 months ago. So while I had the full description and logs... they were two months old. There are some archived or disabled caches in my area I'd still see as good to go. I'm sure that's a common scenario.

 

Wow! 2 months? A couple of days or even a week I could see. If I'm going out specifically for a day of caching my PQs are new that day. If I'm out and about I have my pda and gps with me and the PQs aren't more than a week old at most.

[+gof1]

While true, this is impossible.

Could be. Personally, I'm not a fan of cache containers that have an increased potential for getting people to do dumb things. (Heck, I do enough dumb things all on my own!) This includes sprinkler heads, electrical boxes, etc. I wouldn't support a moratorium on them simply because I prefer education to legislation. I think that teaching folks why a particular container may be a bad idea would go a lot farther toward preventing future damage than trying to ban them. Once a person is educated regarding issues they may not have considered at the time of placement, they will often apply that knowledge to the benefit of everyone.

 

Quite right. I've seen hundreds of examples of that. Over all there has been a noticeable improvement in improperly placed caches.

 

Thank you very much for your efforts.

 

Improperly placed caches have gotten better? Good, cause I'd hate to find a sub par improperly placed cache.

[Clan Riffster]

No problem with any of those containers. Just put 'em in odd places.

I agree. They can be fun if done right. They're just not my cup of tea.

I won't preach my preferences from the heavens, but if someone asks, I'll explain why I don't care for them.

To each their own. So long as I'm having fun playing this quirky little game, I must be doing something right.

[+Rockin Roddy]

... how many cachers do you suppose would bother with a sprinkler unless they thought the cache could possibly be there??

Ummm... Every cacher who has ever found a sprinkler head cache once 'bothered' a sprinkler head without ever having found one before. Also, every cacher is trained to imagine a cache being anything, anywhere. Any object that could hold a log is looked at as if 'the cache could possible be there'.

 

Not true, I heard about sprinkler caches long before I ever saw the damage to one. I heard about electric box caches before ever seeing one...word of mouth reaches far and wide!

 

Clan, you could be right about educating, but how can this be done? Not through the forums, not through just word of mouth and I'm SURE GS won't be saying much to educate against it...would be nice, but not likely to happen.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Groundspeak has the perfect vehicle for education - the weekly newsletter. They just don't use it adequately. Each week the first section is a miniscule paragraph that has little to say. They could easily add a more in-depth section on various topics.

 

I realize not everyone subscribes to the newsletter but maybe that's because it really doesn't have too much to offer.

[+moparots]

Ive only found two sprinkler head caches, and the only reason I found the first is because I noticed the pvc pipe did not go all the way to the ground. Maybe that could be a requirement or some other kind of marking on top of the container,or would that riun the hide. Just thinking out loud.

[+GrateBear]

I think location is the key. The only one I've found was placed in a dirt patch between a park bench and a huge tree that were about 4' apart. As I looked at it, I realized that location made no sense for a true sprinkler head.

[+amianda]

Personally, I think it'd be a lot more effective to have a moratorium on stupidity.

I can check every sprinkler head in a Wally World parking lot and you'd never know I was there.

BillyBobNosePicker can come along behind me and break every one because he's not bright enough to check them carefully.

In that case, it's not the sprinkler head caches that are causing the problems.

Rather, it's the heavy handed searchers.

 

So true. We took some newbies out caching for their first time, and I explained why I was paying so much attention to sprinkler heads to the "dad" of the group. I was gently proding them with my toe (as the ones I've seen are simply set into a hole and not attached to anything or weighted down so they're kinda loose in the ground), and he quickly set to work molesting each one! I had to stop him from trying to unscrew the lid of a sprinklerhead that was obviously attached to a below the ground pipe system - some people are kind of dense.

 

The idea of testing whether or not there's a spring inside is a good tip. Thanks for whoever suggested that.

[+WRASTRO]

... how many cachers do you suppose would bother with a sprinkler unless they thought the cache could possibly be there??

Ummm... Every cacher who has ever found a sprinkler head cache once 'bothered' a sprinkler head without ever having found one before. Also, every cacher is trained to imagine a cache being anything, anywhere. Any object that could hold a log is looked at as if 'the cache could possible be there'.

 

Not true, I heard about sprinkler caches long before I ever saw the damage to one. I heard about electric box caches before ever seeing one...word of mouth reaches far and wide!

 

Clan, you could be right about educating, but how can this be done? Not through the forums, not through just word of mouth and I'm SURE GS won't be saying much to educate against it...would be nice, but not likely to happen.

I think you may have misunderstood CRs post. If you found the cache you "bothered" a sprinkler head. Just as you "bothered" an electric box to find a cache. It really doesn't matter that your finds involved fake sprinkler heads and electrical boxes. You still "bothered" them.

[+Glenn]

It may be a local problem for you. I've found numerous of these kinds of caches and have never found one "trashed". They can be "checked" for caches pretty easily by merely gripping the riser portion (use opposing fingernails) and pulling up. If you detect the spring, then it's a real sprinkler. And they can be reassembled. What is needed is to educate cachers not to "disassemble" anything or trash any public propery.

 

This test would have failed for the first sprinkler head cache that I found. To get the log you pulled on the top portion of the sprinkler head which was held down by a spring and a stopper of some sort to keep the top from being pulled all the way off.

[+Glenn]

What about the idea of a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler head caches. I hate to suggest it because they are so inventive and creative, but we need to think about the game not getting a bad name, especially in public parks where it could easily be banned.

 

I've placed one sprinkler head container, but it was in a place where there was no sprinkler system, so there was no chance of damage.

 

I think it is more an issue with the manner people use to look for caches, rather than the method used for hiding caches. A thoughtless searcher can tear up almost anything.

 

I once took apart a real sprinkler head and had a very hard time getting it back together. In fact I wonder if I did get it back together correctly. I did check all around the area and I didn't see any other sprinkler heads so I didn't think there was a sprinkler system in the area. For some reason this was a lone sprinkler head about 100 feet on the other side of a line of very unkept bushes.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

It may be a local problem for you. I've found numerous of these kinds of caches and have never found one "trashed". They can be "checked" for caches pretty easily by merely gripping the riser portion (use opposing fingernails) and pulling up. If you detect the spring, then it's a real sprinkler. And they can be reassembled. What is needed is to educate cachers not to "disassemble" anything or trash any public propery.

 

This test would have failed for the first sprinkler head cache that I found. To get the log you pulled on the top portion of the sprinkler head which was held down by a spring and a stopper of some sort to keep the top from being pulled all the way off.

OK. I'll admit it's not a perfect test. All of them that I've encountered so far have had the nozzle glued in place, the riser cut off and the spring removed to create the cavity. If you use the fingernail test and the riser doesn't come up, it's either stuck or the cache. If the sprinkler is active, there is usually some residual water that will be present when you pull it up, as an added indicator. I guess I could develop one where the riser tube is the container (retaining the spring) and the nozzle is the cap. More devious!

 

The toe-tap method also helps detect these kind. I don't recommend disassembling something unless you are absolutely sure you can reassemble it. Even then, you shouldn't do it.

[+Wadcutter]

2 years ago while in Pensacola we looked for a cache in a park along the coast. The hint was something like "in the water but it's not". When we approached the area, which was a flower/plant bed, the first thing we noticed were all the sprinkler heads had been taken apart and were laying scattered about the area. These weren't taken apart by groundskeepers. As much as the parts were scattered the city was going to have to replace them instead of repair. I'm sure if they thought cachers had done the damage it wouldn't have put a very favorable light on our hobby.

[+Rockin Roddy]

... how many cachers do you suppose would bother with a sprinkler unless they thought the cache could possibly be there??

Ummm... Every cacher who has ever found a sprinkler head cache once 'bothered' a sprinkler head without ever having found one before. Also, every cacher is trained to imagine a cache being anything, anywhere. Any object that could hold a log is looked at as if 'the cache could possible be there'.

 

Not true, I heard about sprinkler caches long before I ever saw the damage to one. I heard about electric box caches before ever seeing one...word of mouth reaches far and wide!

 

Clan, you could be right about educating, but how can this be done? Not through the forums, not through just word of mouth and I'm SURE GS won't be saying much to educate against it...would be nice, but not likely to happen.

I think you may have misunderstood CRs post. If you found the cache you "bothered" a sprinkler head. Just as you "bothered" an electric box to find a cache. It really doesn't matter that your finds involved fake sprinkler heads and electrical boxes. You still "bothered" them.

 

I think it is you who many have misunderstood? First it was sbell who posted the quote and I deny this is completely true. Sbell said you had to first "bother" one...before ever finding one. This is indeed untrue since I heard about and knew about these types of hides long before ever"bothering" or finding one myself. Sure, someone did bother one, but that's not what was said and I rebuked it as such! Now, if I misunderstood, could someone please put it into a comment I do understand?

 

To further on sbells comment though...I agree that cachers are trained to look everywhere...but how did this come about? I never once checked a lamppost until I heard about them, I never once checked an electric box until I heard about them. People placing the caches are the ones who trained the cachers...

[+legacypac]

I've seen lots of busted/disassembled sprinkler heads with no cache in the area. Don't assume its the cachers. My sprinkler head hide is no where near a real sprinkler system so it should be ok. Hiding a fake sprinker in the real sprinklers is asking for trouble.

[+KBI]

... how many cachers do you suppose would bother with a sprinkler unless they thought the cache could possibly be there??

Ummm... Every cacher who has ever found a sprinkler head cache once 'bothered' a sprinkler head without ever having found one before. Also, every cacher is trained to imagine a cache being anything, anywhere. Any object that could hold a log is looked at as if 'the cache could possible be there'.

Very insightful.

 

I am convinced that I have missed out on many, many finds over the years because I wasn’t willing to inspect some specific hide possibility or another. The moment I found my very first sprinkler head cache I realized there were at least a couple others I had previously DNFed that were probably hidden the same way. To this day I am sure I have missed out on dozens of finds, not because of lack of imagination on my part, but due instead to my occasional unwillingness to examine a likely hiding place that I didn’t feel comfortable pursuing.

 

I take chances all the time, but there is always a line I will not cross. If I am sufficiently uneasy whether certain actions might cause embarrassing or serious problems then I am perfectly willing to pass up a smiley and move on to the next search.

 

Not everyone, however, possesses such fine judgment as myself.

 

Clan Riffster suggests better education will fix the problem. As Clan Riffster also said, it would be nice if we could ban stupidity.

 

Won’t happen. As contemporary philosopher Ron White observes: "You can’t fix stupid:"

"If I could offer one piece of advice to the planet, it would be this: Don't marry for looks alone, and I'll tell you why. In a few years, when ... <

edited for Family Friendliness

> ... her belly gets too big, she can get a tummy tuck and have a belly like a cheerleader. If her vision goes bad, you can have LASIK surgery and have 20/20 vision. If her hearing goes bad, they can install a device in her ear that will give you hearing as clear as it was the day you were born. But let me tell you something, folks: You can't fix stupid. There's not a pill you can take; there's not a class you can go to. Stupid is forever."

Same applies to cachers. Education only fixes ignorance; you can't fix stupid. You can lead a horse to schooling, but you can’t make him think.

 

In my opinion it is not the hider’s responsibility to protect the seeker from making bad choices. No matter how idiot-proof you make your hide, some genius will eventually defeat your countermeasures and make a mess.

 

Each cache seeker is responsible for his/her own behavior.

Edited April 18, 2009 by KBI

[GOF and Bacall]

In my opinion it is not the hider’s responsibility to protect the seeker from making bad choices. No matter how idiot-proof you make your hide, some genius will eventually defeat your countermeasures and make a mess.

 

Each cache seeker is responsible for his/her own behavior.

 

It is ultimately each individual who is responsible for his own actions in any endeavor. If I break a sprinkler head it is my fault and responsibility.

 

That said, there are things that hiders can do to limit the damage that a careless seeker can do. Avoid challenging hides in sensitive or fragile locations. Try to ensure your hide is appropriate for its location. Not every location can support a cache.

[+Team Cotati]

Each cache hider is responsible for his/her own behavior.

 

Responsible to hide caches in such a manner so as to be reasonably confident that a given hide will not create a situation wherein subsequent searchers might, simply via the act of responsible seeking, make a mess, violate private property trespass, damage the environment or property of others.

 

"Taking chances" ought not be a component of responsible cache placement.

 

Perfect cache placement is and never was the reasonable goal of hiding geocaches.

[+Too Tall John]

Each cache seeker is responsible for his/her own behavior.

While this may be true, like Team Cotati & GOF & Bacall said, there is a certain level of responsibility that needs to be placed on the cache owner.

 

To do otherwise is yet another passing of the buck.

[+KBI]

In my opinion it is not the hider’s responsibility to protect the seeker from making bad choices. No matter how idiot-proof you make your hide, some genius will eventually defeat your countermeasures and make a mess.

 

Each cache seeker is responsible for his/her own behavior.

It is ultimately each individual who is responsible for his own actions in any endeavor. If I break a sprinkler head it is my fault and responsibility.

 

That said, there are things that hiders can do to limit the damage that a careless seeker can do. Avoid challenging hides in sensitive or fragile locations. Try to ensure your hide is appropriate for its location. Not every location can support a cache.

Agreed. But that doesn’t fix the problem.

 

Just as one cannot defend against "seeker stupidity," neither can one protect the caching world against a hider’s poor judgment.

 

It is fine for you and me and a handful of others in this thread to agree that thoughtful cache placement limits the problem, but no matter how wordily we preach to each other, no matter how well-written the guidelines, and no matter how vigilant the reviewers, there will always be poorly though-out cache hides.

 

There is a sprinkler head cache near me. It is a real sprinkler head modified into a waterproof cache container, and it is located in a place where there is no actual irrigation nearby. No problem. So what is to prevent some cacher from copying it, and copying it poorly? What’s to keep the next guy from placing his fake sprinkler amongst a series of real ones? What’s to prevent the next guy from placing his nano inside a real, operating sprinkler head?

 

Nothing, that’s what. Nothing other than common sense. And if an adequate supply of such sense does not already reside within the mind of the hider, then it probably cannot be installed retroactively.

 

In other words: You can’t fix stupid.

 

Merely wishing reality were otherwise is popular, but it is a totally ineffective means of dealing with injudicious cacher behavior. Rules intended to prevent inept hides do little more than remove good hides. And once we head down the road of anti-idiocy legislation designed to protect the seeker from himself, where does it stop? Should we ban ALL hides where seekers might hurt themselves, hurt others, or damage property? Would there be any caches left?

 

Even when the hider makes a clumsily designed hide, the seeker’s choices are still the seeker’s responsibility. (Intentionally malicious booby-traps aside, of course.) Making that observation is not passing the buck. It is simply putting the onus of responsibility squarely where it inevitably belongs.

[GOF and Bacall]

Each cache hider is responsible for his/her own behavior.

 

Responsible to hide caches in such a manner so as to be reasonably confident that a given hide will not create a situation wherein subsequent searchers might, simply via the act of responsible seeking, make a mess, violate private property trespass, damage the environment or property of others.

 

"Taking chances" ought not be a component of responsible cache placement.

 

Perfect cache placement is and never was the reasonable goal of hiding geocaches.

 

Responsible seeking should include not making a mess regardless of the hide.

[GOF and Bacall]

In my opinion it is not the hider’s responsibility to protect the seeker from making bad choices. No matter how idiot-proof you make your hide, some genius will eventually defeat your countermeasures and make a mess.

 

Each cache seeker is responsible for his/her own behavior.

It is ultimately each individual who is responsible for his own actions in any endeavor. If I break a sprinkler head it is my fault and responsibility.

 

That said, there are things that hiders can do to limit the damage that a careless seeker can do. Avoid challenging hides in sensitive or fragile locations. Try to ensure your hide is appropriate for its location. Not every location can support a cache.

Agreed. But that doesn’t fix the problem.

 

Just as one cannot defend against "seeker stupidity," neither can one protect the caching world against a hider’s poor judgment.

 

It is fine for you and me and a handful of others in this thread to agree that thoughtful cache placement limits the problem, but no matter how wordily we preach to each other, no matter how well-written the guidelines, and no matter how vigilant the reviewers, there will always be poorly though-out cache hides.

 

There is a sprinkler head cache near me. It is a real sprinkler head modified into a waterproof cache container, and it is located in a place where there is no actual irrigation nearby. No problem. So what is to prevent some cacher from copying it, and copying it poorly? What’s to keep the next guy from placing his fake sprinkler amongst a series of real ones? What’s to prevent the next guy from placing his nano inside a real, operating sprinkler head?

 

Nothing, that’s what. Nothing other than common sense. And if an adequate supply of such sense does not already reside within the mind of the hider, then it probably cannot be installed retroactively.

 

In other words: You can’t fix stupid.

 

Merely wishing reality were otherwise is popular, but it is a totally ineffective means of dealing with injudicious cacher behavior. Rules intended to prevent inept hides do little more than remove good hides. And once we head down the road of anti-idiocy legislation designed to protect the seeker from himself, where does it stop? Should we ban ALL hides where seekers might hurt themselves, hurt others, or damage property? Would there be any caches left?

 

Even when the hider makes a clumsily designed hide, the seeker’s choices are still the seeker’s responsibility. (Intentionally malicious booby-traps aside, of course.) Making that observation is not passing the buck. It is simply putting the onus of responsibility squarely where it inevitably belongs.

 

We are on the same page, mostly. I agree that Mr. White is correct in his observation that "you can't fix stupid." I'm not saying that you and I can change the world from this forum conversation. I am saying that each of us should do our best in our own little corner of the world. It's all we can do.