What about a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler caches

[+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.

 

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

 

You can't possibly be meaning to try and make a case that cache hides, by the very nature of their location and method of hiding, cannot and do not contribute to the likelihood that the area around the hide location might become 'messy' simply due to the nature of the location chosen.

 

While it is true that the method of the hide does not absolve the seeker of any responsibility for making a 'mess' when seeking, nor does it absolve the hider from the responsibility for their poor choice. To believe otherwise, you'd also have to believe that 'no parking' signs never ever serve a responsible purpose. People would simply make their own responsible decision wrt whether or not to park in a particular location.

 

Let me introduce you to The Tooth Fairy.

 

Human behavior being totally unpredictable as it is.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Team Cotati

[Mushtang]

Hey, maybe enough people will complain about them and we'll soon see Sprinkler Caches banned too. Now that it's clear how to get a kind of cache banned I expect to see a wave of complaints about everything folks want to have removed from the site.

[+KBI]

You can't possibly be meaning to try and make a case that cache hides, by the very nature of their location and method of hiding, cannot and do not contribute to the liklihood that the area around the hide location might become 'messy' simply due to the nature of the location chosen.

 

While it is true that the method of the hide does not resolve the seeker of any responsibility for making a 'mess' when seeking, nor does it resolve the hider from the responsibility for their poor choice.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with that.

 

If seekers tear up an area around a cache, then that is the seekers' fault, NOT the hider's. While acknowledging such human nature when designing a cache placement is prudent, lack of same prudence does NOT remove the blame from the vandals themselves.

 

To belive otherwise, you'd also have to believe that 'no parking' signs never ever serve a responsible purpose. People would simply make their own responsible decision wrt whether or not to park in a particular location.

Signs or no signs, there will always be those who park wherever they please.

 

You can’t make drivers read signs; you can’t make drivers use good judgment.

 

You can’t make cache seekers read guidelines and cache pages; you can’t make cache seekers use good judgment.

 

Thoughtful hide placement is always good advice. You and I can make our cache as idiot-proof as we are able, yet doing so will NOT prevent a cacher who finds our excellently designed cache from destroying a sprinkler head, natural feature, bird house, electrical box, public sculpture or water valve cover when he arrives at his next caching stop.

[+Team Cotati]

You can't possibly be meaning to try and make a case that cache hides, by the very nature of their location and method of hiding, cannot and do not contribute to the liklihood that the area around the hide location might become 'messy' simply due to the nature of the location chosen.

 

While it is true that the method of the hide does not resolve the seeker of any responsibility for making a 'mess' when seeking, nor does it resolve the hider from the responsibility for their poor choice.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with that.

 

If seekers tear up an area around a cache, then that is the seekers' fault, NOT the hider's. While acknowledging such human nature when designing a cache placement is prudent, lack of same prudence does NOT remove the blame from the vandals themselves.

 

To belive otherwise, you'd also have to believe that 'no parking' signs never ever serve a responsible purpose. People would simply make their own responsible decision wrt whether or not to park in a particular location.

Signs or no signs, there will always be those who park wherever they please.

 

You can’t make drivers read signs; you can’t make drivers use good judgment.

 

You can’t make cache seekers read guidelines and cache pages; you can’t make cache seekers use good judgment.

 

Thoughtful hide placement is always good advice. You and I can make our cache as idiot-proof as we are able, yet doing so will NOT prevent a cacher who finds our excellently designed cache from destroying a sprinkler head, natural feature, bird house, electrical box, public sculpture or water valve cover when he arrives at his next caching stop.

 

I thought that I had made it clear that perfection, on either side of the equation was not the objective. I guess not.

 

You win.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Team Cotati]

Hey, maybe enough people will complain about them and we'll soon see Sprinkler Caches banned too. Now that it's clear how to get a kind of cache banned I expect to see a wave of complaints about everything folks want to have removed from the site.

 

If past history is any indicator, I'd say that you have little reason for concern.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+gof1]

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.

 

You can't possibly be meaning to try and make a case that cache hides, by the very nature of their location and method of hiding, cannot and do not contribute to the liklihood that the area around the hide location might become 'messy' simply due to the nature of the location chosen.

 

While it is true that the method of the hide does not resolve the seeker of any responsibility for making a 'mess' when seeking, nor does it resolve the hider from the responsibility for their poor choice. To belive otherwise, you'd also have to believe that 'no parking' signs never ever serve a responsible purpose. People would simply make their own responsible decision wrt whether or not to park in a particular location.

 

Let me introduce you to The Tooth Fairy.

 

Human behavior being totally unpreidctable as it is.

 

How the heck did you get all that from what I said? News flash, you can't read minds. Try reading what is on the screen in front of you instead.

 

I'm the guy that has been saying right along that BOTH hiders AND finders are at fault. Responsible seeking should NOT include making a mess and responsible hiding should take into account the wear and tear on the hide location. I could swear I've said this before.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Hey, maybe enough people will complain about them and we'll soon see Sprinkler Caches banned too. Now that it's clear how to get a kind of cache banned I expect to see a wave of complaints about everything folks want to have removed from the site.

 

If the same people who complained about the caches which recently were banned, you could be right, otherwise this is doubtful.

[sdarken]

Even if you don't break the sprinkler, you can leave it aimed the wrong way if you aren't careful.

 

This is the main issue I have with people fiddling with sprinklers rather than the issue of breaking them. A sprinkler that ends up aimed the wrong way is worthless and has the potential to result in plants dying.

 

Even if you reassemble a sprinkler correctly you're not likely to know/notice if it's lined up correctly.

[+gof1]

Even if you don't break the sprinkler, you can leave it aimed the wrong way if you aren't careful.

 

This is the main issue I have with people fiddling with sprinklers rather than the issue of breaking them. A sprinkler that ends up aimed the wrong way is worthless and has the potential to result in plants dying.

 

Even if you reassemble a sprinkler correctly you're not likely to know/notice if it's lined up correctly.

 

Or it could end in a hilarious bit of comedy. I can just imagine the situation. Some young college grad, nearly empty briefcase in hand, walking up to the front of Megga Corp. He's full of confidence that shows in the swagger of his gait. Head up. Chest out. A confident, yet professional, smile firmly set on his lips. As he turns the corner in the sidewalk heading to the front door he hears a click from a control box set into the lawn. As he glances to his left towards the sound a sprinkler head on the right pops its head up above the level of the turf and spits right into our young job seekers crotch. His life is change forever. He fails to get the job and spends the rest of his pitiful days sleeping on a park bench instead of that penthouse suite with the view of Central Park.

[+Renegade Knight]

... 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?

I've seen the same problem and agree. They are/were creative but folks can't tell the difference between real and fake (fake slides out of the ground easily where real doesn't and I wouldn't bank on that being 100% true) and end up messing up the real ones.

 

Which reminds me I have to replace one of the ones in my yard. Seems I ran over it and now it slips right out of the ground easily.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Pat in Louisiana]

I have two of these hidden in Baton Rouge, La.

One is in the middle of a large well maintained sports field and if we have not trimmed the grass that month we have to bring our metal detector to locate it. It is a tough find.

The other is on the edge of a parking lot. Neither of these have any other sprinkler anywhere around. We have also found half a dozen of these in our outings. It is not hard to tell the real thing. For one thing the real ones are ridged the caches are loose and can be taken out of the ground with little or no effort. Most of the time you can just tap it with your foot and tell is it is the real deal or not. I have more in my kit and have no reservations about hiding them.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

Banning sprinkler caches or any other style of cache will not prevent people from testing sprinklers or other objects. The first time a sprinkler or electric box was used, the genie was out of the bottle. Even if sprinkler or electric boxes are banned and archived, it will take years before seekers stop checking.

 

So, the question is how to protect the image of the game.

 

The answer has several parts.

 

1. When hiding a cache, don't put it somewhere where a seeker may mess with sprinklers or electric boxes, or may trample vegetation, etc. (This is sort of like the prohibition on hiding caches at government buildings or bridges or tunnels, except that TPTB can't police for too close to sprinklers, etc.)

 

2. When designing the cache page, tell seekers things they can forego. (While not everyone reads the pages, enough do that a warning may help ... it couldn't hurt.)

 

3. When seeking a cache, be sensitive to damage you may cause, whether it is to sprinklers, electric boxes, flowers, etc. (Some people are stupid and will cause damage anyway, but that is not a reason not to remind seekers to be sensitive.)

[+Team Cotati]

I thought about putting out a sprinkler head cache but it either requires an already made perfectly sized whole or you're using a pointy object to deface which isn't allowed. In my interpretation you can't put out a sprinkler head hide so I don't consider sprinkler heads.

 

I see what you mean there. However, I've seen postings that indicate that the sprinkler head cache containers are only used where the surrounding soil is extremely soft and the cache hider is able to simply push the container down into the soil.

 

I personally have seen these type cache containers in the ground and I can tell you that, if they were pushed into the soil, the hider would have to either have been The Incredible Hulk on the day that the cache was placed or to have done an exceedingly detailed amount of soil condition analysis in advance of the placement.

 

Now of course I haven't personally visited the apparent thousands of these hides but I have little doubt that most are fairly placed. You are doing the right thing though by abiding by your sense of what is appropriate in a given situation.

 

You can well imagine the perseverance that some cachers possess.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+gof1]

Pick the right time of year and you you could push a pie plate into my back yard with little more than a thought.

[+Team Cotati]

Pick the right time of year and you you could push a pie plate into my back yard with little more than a thought.

 

That is really nice to know. Thank you.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+gof1]

The point is, as I suspect you understand, that just because the ground is hard and dry when you find the cache does not mean it was when the cache was hidden.

 

But who knows. I've been wrong before.

Edited April 19, 2009 by gof1

[+Team Cotati]

The point is, as I suspect you understand, that just because the ground is hard and dry when you find the cache does not mean it was when the cache was hidden.

 

But who knows. I've been wrong before.

 

No, that is a totally foreign concept to me. Thank you for being so informative and helpful.

 

"I see what you mean there. However, I've seen postings that indicate that the sprinkler head cache containers are only used where the surrounding soil is extremely soft and the cache hider is able to simply push the container down into the soil."

[+gof1]

Nice editing of your post. Not gonna play that game.

 

Happy caching.

[+Team Cotati]

I really really do hope that 'emmanogoldfish' is paying close attention over here.

 

Because if he is, he will soon come to the realization that since some people have what amounts to a micro sized version of The Great Dismal Swamp in their backyard (only in certain times of the year, of course) that he ought to stop being cocnerned wrt his own situation and just get out there, push that sprinkler head cache container into the ground and get on with life.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Pat in Louisiana]

Now children, play nice!

[+Pat in Louisiana]

Now Children, Play nice!

[+Team Cotati]

Now Children, Play nice!

 

Thank you for your kind thoughts.

Thank you for your kind thoughts.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+fizzymagic]

Banning sprinkler caches or any other style of cache will not prevent people from testing sprinklers or other objects. The first time a sprinkler or electric box was used, the genie was out of the bottle. Even if sprinkler or electric boxes are banned and archived, it will take years before seekers stop checking.

At least it would stop new caches from actively encouraging it. Passing a law to prohibit drunk driving doesn't prevent people from driving drunk, but it doesn't encourage it, either.

 

Why do we always get these "your solution won't completely solve the problem, so we should do nothing" arguments in threads like this? They are fallacious, you know.

[+wigglesworth]

I agree that we should do something rather than nothing. Let's start by actively getting cache reviewers to 'discourage' sprinkler caches world wide.

[+KBI]

Why do we always get these "your solution won't completely solve the problem, so we should do nothing" arguments in threads like this? They are fallacious, you know.

So is strawmannery.

 

I read back over the thread just now, and I did not see a single post promoting a "we should do nothing" argument.

 

You have committed strawmannery. You, sir, are a strawmanner.

 

Strawmanning is fallacious, you know.

[+wigglesworth]

KBI

Could you recap on what you propose should be done!

[+KBI]

KBI

Could you recap on what you propose should be done!

Sure thing.

 

I have proposed that we acknowledge the fact that

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.

... and

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

... and

Thoughtful cache placement limits the problem.

... and that

... 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.

The OP recognized a specific problem in the way a very small minority of cache seekers cause trouble, both while seeking a certain type of cache, and while later seeking other caches they assume to be similar. He proposed a voluntary moratorium on hiding that particular type of cache. While I agree that thoughtful placement can limit the problem – and we all encourage new cache hiders to consider common sense guidelines, especially those published on the Hiding Your First Geocache page – I also happen to disagree strongly with those who wish to blame cache hiders for the poor behaviors of cache seekers.

 

In brief:

 

(1) I think it is wise to consider typical cacher behavior when placing a cache.

(2) I think it is UNwise to punish good cachers for the actions of a few bad ones – especially when the proposed ban would do little, if anything, to correct the poor judgment of the vandal types.

 

For more details on my underlying reasoning, please review the small number of posts I have already submitted to this thread. Also please note that at no time has anyone in this thread, including me, proposed that we "do nothing."

[+wigglesworth]

Thanks I appreciate the synopsis.

 

Now how do we make this happen?

[+Rockin Roddy]

KBI

Could you recap on what you propose should be done!

Sure thing.

 

I have proposed that we acknowledge the fact that

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.

... and

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

... and

Thoughtful cache placement limits the problem.

... and that

... 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.

The OP recognized a specific problem in the way a very small minority of cache seekers cause trouble, both while seeking a certain type of cache, and while later seeking other caches they assume to be similar. He proposed a voluntary moratorium on hiding that particular type of cache. While I agree that thoughtful placement can limit the problem – and we all encourage new cache hiders to consider common sense guidelines, especially those published on the Hiding Your First Geocache page – I also happen to disagree strongly with those who wish to blame cache hiders for the poor behaviors of cache seekers.

 

In brief:

 

(1) I think it is wise to consider typical cacher behavior when placing a cache.

(2) I think it is UNwise to punish good cachers for the actions of a few bad ones – especially when the proposed ban would do little, if anything, to correct the poor judgment of the vandal types.

 

For more details on my underlying reasoning, please review the small number of posts I have already submitted to this thread. Also please note that at no time has anyone in this thread, including me, proposed that we "do nothing."

 

I believe it was a call to voluntarily stop placing the caches, not a call for a ban!

[+KBI]

If you are trolling for a nitpicking and distracting fight, I predict you will have as little success as did Team Cotati.

 

Good luck, though.

[+Rockin Roddy]

If you are trolling for a nitpicking and distracting fight, I predict you will have as little success as did Team Cotati.

 

Good luck, though.

 

If that's aimed at me, I guess you'll have to accept that you're dead wrong just as you were about it being a call for a ban. Sorry if my pointing out that fact bothered you, it wasn't meant to!

[+jtbrady01]

I've found two sprinkler caches. Both of these you barely touched and they came straight out of the ground since they weren't connected to any water supply. A real sprinkler would have been connected to a water source and not moved. Not sure what the issue is. My two cents. Off to another topic.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I've found two sprinkler caches. Both of these you barely touched and they came straight out of the ground since they weren't connected to any water supply. A real sprinkler would have been connected to a water source and not moved. Not sure what the issue is. My two cents. Off to another topic.

 

So since you had no problems with the two you found, there obviously isn't a problem??

[+Pat in Louisiana]

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?

Hi, Me again,

How do you know they were not "mower-trashed" or "bicycle-trashed"........

Did you see a GeoCacher take them apart?

 

Since I found my first sprinkler five years ago I pay attention to sprinklers at public locations.

Almost every hotel or mall I visit has damaged sprinklers and no geocaches in the area.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Pat in Louisiana

[+fizzymagic]

How do you know they were not "mower-trashed" or "bicycle-trashed"........

Did you see a GeoCacher take them apart?

Are you claiming that geocachers do not damage sprinkler heads by taking them apart? Or are you simply asking for direct evidence that they do?

 

If the former, I can assure you that geocachers do take apart sprinkler heads. It has cost me about $200 over the last couple of years. That's because there is a cache in my front yard (not hidden by me) that is NOT in a sprinkler head. I have actually physically watched geocachers break my sprinkler head searching for the cache.

 

Want to guess how many of them confessed and offered to pay for the damage they had caused?

 

I'll give you three guesses.

 

I agree with KBI et al. that the problem is ultimately with the seeker, not the hider. However, we seem to have enough seekers who are unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate search techniques that I believe a voluntary moratorium, or at least some disapprobation, is called for. Sprinkler-head hides are a kind of "attractive nuisance" in that they encourage seekers to use inappropriate searching techniques.

[+sbell111]

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.

The problem is that people are taking that ownership responsibility and stretching it until it breaks.

 

They are taking the position that the cache hider who places an obviously fake sprinkler head cache placed in the most unlikely-to-be-sprinkled location is responsible for any damage that may occur to sprinkler heads anywhere.

 

As a geocacher, I am responsible for any damage that I cause while looking for a cache and any damage to the areas immediately surrounding any caches that I hid. I am not responsible for damage that was done by other geocachers looking for other people's caches.

[+sbell111]

... It has cost me about $200 over the last couple of years. That's because there is a cache in my front yard (not hidden by me) that is NOT in a sprinkler head. I have actually physically watched geocachers break my sprinkler head searching for the cache. ...

I am extremely tempted to call shenanigans on this. My reasoning is that, in my opinion, any reasonable person would request that the third party remove the cache from the front yard if it were costing the owner hundreds of dollars. I realize that it's possible that some yard owners would not come to this decision, for whatever personal and illogical (in my opinion) reason. Therefore, I will not call shenanigans at this time.

 

On with the show.

Edited April 20, 2009 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

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.

The problem is that people are taking that ownership responsibility and stretching it until it breaks.

 

They are taking the position that the cache hider who places an obviously fake sprinkler head cache placed in the most unlikely-to-be-sprinkled location is responsible for any damage that may occur to sprinkler heads anywhere.

 

As a geocacher, I am responsible for any damage that I cause while looking for a cache and any damage to the areas immediately surrounding any caches that I hid. I am not responsible for damage that was done by other geocachers looking for other people's caches.

This conversation is very similar to the ones about whether or not caches should be hidden using fake electrical boxes because stupid cachers are likely to get hurt looking in real electrical boxes afterwards, and whether or not hiders should use peanut butter jars because stupid people that are hyper allergic to peanuts would open the container anyway.

 

It also is a little similar to the debates on whether or not micro cache containers shouldn't be used because the folks that insist caching should involve trade items are unwilling to filter out micro containers.

 

The seeker is responsible for the seeker's behavior. The hider is not.

[+DanOCan]

Why do we always get these "your solution won't completely solve the problem, so we should do nothing" arguments in threads like this? They are fallacious, you know.

 

Yeah, we see this sort of thing in every facet of life. Rarely is there one single solution that will solve the problem, but often many little steps make a big difference.

 

I can think of at least two occasions where I have mistakenly pulled up a sprinkler head only to discover it was not the cache. In one of those cases it appeared to be the only sprinkler head around. I'd like to think I am not a stupid person, but I won't guarantee I was able to get everything back into position perfectly.

 

Whether it is a sprinkler head, a fake security camera, fake birdhouses, fake electrical boxes, or whatever -- once someone is trained to think something could possibly be a cache it is hard to change that mentality. I pity the person who starts investigating a security camera to see if it is real or not, regardless of whether they actually alter or damage it -- the very act looks suspicious.

 

I'm a big fan of ammo cans in the woods.

[Mushtang]

... It has cost me about $200 over the last couple of years. That's because there is a cache in my front yard (not hidden by me) that is NOT in a sprinkler head. I have actually physically watched geocachers break my sprinkler head searching for the cache. ...

I am extremely tempted to call shenanigans on this. My reasoning is that, in my opinion, any reasonable person would request that the third party remove the cache from the front yard if it were costing the owner hundreds of dollars. I realize that it's possible that some yard owners would not come to this decision, for whatever personal and illogical (in my opinion) reason. Therefore, I will not call shenanigans at this time.

 

On with the show.

I was thinking the same thing. With how quick Fizzy is to call people on making errors in the forums (when he thinks they're using bad logic, etc), I find it hard to believe that he'd just watch someone in his yard break his sprinkler head and accept it over and over.

 

Of course he didn't say if he watched from a window and cursed from the dark, or if he watched while running across the yard screaming at them. But the tone of his post suggests he wants us to believe he watched the damage take place and then paid for the repair himself without confronting either the hider or the seeker.

 

Sounds fizzy, I mean, fishy.

[+bflentje]

I completely shredded three authentic sprinkler heads this last weekend just to protest this thread. Too bad it was in my neighbors yard next door.

[knowschad]

Sounds like you guys are having fun!!

[+Renegade Knight]

How do you know they were not "mower-trashed" or "bicycle-trashed"........

Did you see a GeoCacher take them apart?

Are you claiming that geocachers do not damage sprinkler heads by taking them apart? Or are you simply asking for direct evidence that they do?

 

If the former, I can assure you that geocachers do take apart sprinkler heads. It has cost me about $200 over the last couple of years. That's because there is a cache in my front yard (not hidden by me) that is NOT in a sprinkler head. I have actually physically watched geocachers break my sprinkler head searching for the cache.

 

Want to guess how many of them confessed and offered to pay for the damage they had caused?

 

I'll give you three guesses.

 

I agree with KBI et al. that the problem is ultimately with the seeker, not the hider. However, we seem to have enough seekers who are unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate search techniques that I believe a voluntary moratorium, or at least some disapprobation, is called for. Sprinkler-head hides are a kind of "attractive nuisance" in that they encourage seekers to use inappropriate searching techniques.

 

I'm with you. I didn't think they were an issue until I dissassembled my first real sprinkler head. I put it back together (I think). No I didn't offer to pay damages. However I've since quit assuming the heads are caches and put them up on my short list of hide types to avoid as an owner.

[+Renegade Knight]

...This conversation is very similar to the ones about whether or not caches should be hidden using fake electrical boxes...

 

Yes it is. I've even thought about the differences. Real boxes are locked. If they aren't (whey they are supposed to be) you open the lid see no cache but wires and shut the lid and no harm done. Sprinklers seem to have spring that jump out and are hard to replace. They aren't easy to put back together.

 

The problem is an order of magnitude worse.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The problem is that people are taking that ownership responsibility and stretching it until it breaks...

 

Your cache. Your responsilbility. Seems pretty simple. My ownership of my caches is made very clear in the disclaimer on each cache page.

 

No I'm not responsible for the damage caused by the finder. However I would be irresponsible if I didn't learn the lesson, and make sure the problem doesn't happen again.

 

I've learned there is a real problem with sprinkler head exactly as the OP has pointed out. I've also learned that retaining wall caches are another problem. There are locations that finders will harm for no particularly good reason. Now that I know this how can I propose a cache to the land onwer that I know will create a problem?. How can I give advice and gloss over this? I can't won't and don't. I tell land owners straight. It serves me well. As much as I champion more freedom over less (ALR thread anyone?) for cache owners I'm not going to gloss over a problem for land owners either.

[BRTango]

I've found several sprinkler heads in the vicinity of a cache that had been broken, but from the looks of them, they were run over by lawn mowers and such.

Edited April 20, 2009 by BRTango

[+Rockin Roddy]

I've found several sprinkler heads in the vicinity of a cache that had been broken, but from the looks of them, they were run over by lawn mowers and such.

 

Not likely, but possible. Sprinklers are made to pop up and then go back down afterwards, some do stick up, but not likely 3 in the same area. Besides, if the guy mowing the yard does that damage and is made to pay (if sourced out), it's unlikely they'll make that mistake too often!

[BRTango]

I've found several sprinkler heads in the vicinity of a cache that had been broken, but from the looks of them, they were run over by lawn mowers and such.

 

Not likely, but possible. Sprinklers are made to pop up and then go back down afterwards, some do stick up, but not likely 3 in the same area. Besides, if the guy mowing the yard does that damage and is made to pay (if sourced out), it's unlikely they'll make that mistake too often!

 

Agreed it's not likely... but it does happen. In well maintained systems it's much less likely, but in older less well maintained systems, when a sprinkler head gets jammed (a rock falls in) and doesn't go all the way down it can easily be caught by a mower.

[+fizzymagic]

... It has cost me about $200 over the last couple of years. That's because there is a cache in my front yard (not hidden by me) that is NOT in a sprinkler head. I have actually physically watched geocachers break my sprinkler head searching for the cache. ...

I am extremely tempted to call shenanigans on this. My reasoning is that, in my opinion, any reasonable person would request that the third party remove the cache from the front yard if it were costing the owner hundreds of dollars. I realize that it's possible that some yard owners would not come to this decision, for whatever personal and illogical (in my opinion) reason. Therefore, I will not call shenanigans at this time.

 

On with the show.

I was thinking the same thing. With how quick Fizzy is to call people on making errors in the forums (when he thinks they're using bad logic, etc), I find it hard to believe that he'd just watch someone in his yard break his sprinkler head and accept it over and over.

 

Of course he didn't say if he watched from a window and cursed from the dark, or if he watched while running across the yard screaming at them. But the tone of his post suggests he wants us to believe he watched the damage take place and then paid for the repair himself without confronting either the hider or the seeker.

 

Wow. Accusing me of lying in the forums, based on nothing but your perception of my personality from my posts. That's pretty amazing!

 

This particular sprinkler head has been broken by cachers three times. One of those cachers took responsibility and offered to pay, but I told them not to worry about it. As for why I let the cache remain? It is the end of a very difficult multi-stage puzzle that was placed in my honor. Very few people have solved it. While I don't suffer fools in the forums, in real life I am a lot nicer. If I notice somebody searching out in the yard now, I go out and let them know it's not in the sprinklers. I think I did ask the cache owner to reiterate on the cache page that the final is not in a sprinkler head, but now that you mention it, I don't think I ever went and checked to see if he did that.

 

Still, it seems to me that accusing another forum poster of lying is a pretty serious thing to do without some evidence to back it up. In fact, I would venture to guess it might even be a violation of the forum guidelines, but I am no expert.

[+tozainamboku]

I've found several sprinkler heads in the vicinity of a cache that had been broken, but from the looks of them, they were run over by lawn mowers and such.

 

Not likely, but possible. Sprinklers are made to pop up and then go back down afterwards, some do stick up, but not likely 3 in the same area. Besides, if the guy mowing the yard does that damage and is made to pay (if sourced out), it's unlikely they'll make that mistake too often!

I have no doubt that far more sprinkler heads are damaged by lawn mowers than by geocachers. I suspect that some area have more problems with vandals or with curious kids taking apart sprinklers than with geocachers. That said, I agree with RK. There are some geocachers who at some point will disassemble a real sprinkler head and have problems putting it back together. Most will be like him and realize that maybe checking for a fake sprinkler head shouldn't involve having to disassemble it. Most are loose and you can pick them up without unscrewing anything. If you find yourself taking apart something to see if this is a cache, you learn to ask yourself if you are sure you can put this back as you found it. It may be unfortunate that some people need to break something in order to learn this. (And more unfortunate when these people don't take responsibility and offer to pay for repairs).

 

I'm not seeing how a moratorium, voluntary or other wise, would stop any damage that geocachers may be causing. There are enough sprinkler head caches out there that people will continue to check sprinkler heads. As state a small minority that hasn't yet figured out not to disassemble something run the risk of taking something apart that they can't get back together. I suspect that even you banned this as technique and didn't grandfather in existing caches you'd have a few people continue to disassemble sprinkler heads. Even now there are probably some people who will dig with a shovel, trowel, or other pointy object to find a cache if they think one is buried there. You have to admit, finding a sprinkler head where one doesn't belong can bring a smile to a cacher's face. Muggles who aren't as observant might walk right by it, but the cache knows that this is the cache. Sprinkler heads and similar camouflage should only be used where the cache would immediately be able to identify this as the cache and not the real thing. Then, perhaps, seekers will know that if they have to disassemble something it isn't the cache.

 

Best fake sprinkler head I found - in the sand at the beach.

Worst fake sprinkler head - someone hid one in the flower bed in front of his apartment building. The coords were a little off and put you on the lawn not to far from the sidewalk. Hint said something about H20. He had a terrible time with people unscrewing the sprinkler heads in the lawn and not putting them back right. I DNF it the first time because none the sprinkler heads I looked at seemed fake. I finally came back with another cacher who had been given alternate coordinates. Not too happy about having to walk across the private lawn to the flower beds, but at least the fake sprinkler there was obvious.

2nd worse sprinkler head - about .2 miles from the best one. In a flower bed at the beach parking lot. An obvious fake sprinkler head and quite easy to find but about 1 foot away from a real sprinker head that someone had taken off and was unable to replace. The damage caused to the flower bed where the water came out of the pipe instead of the sprinkler was obvious.