What about a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler caches

[+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!

 

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.

 

I won't say all, but a great majority of the sprinklers out there are pretty much enclosed so that a rock cannot get inside of it and cause it to stay up, sand and dirt will do this. However, a simple tap of the head will get it to go back down in 99% of these cases. Knowing that most commercial properties use commercial brand sprinklers instead of the cheaper ones sold at Wally World, I can tell you that my statement about the mower guy won't make such mistakes too often is on target...we're talking between $50-$300 per head for many of these systems.

 

How do the heads look when broken? If chopped off and laying in pieces, I would agree with the mower getting it, if disassembled, then the mower isn't the culprit. You'll note, however, I have not said the cacher is the sole suspect.

 

As to Toz's assessment that stopping them from being placed won't help....stopping placing such caches in places which are prone to problems is a good start, but a better start would indeed be a stop to using these containers altogether. Saying it won't help is bunk, if they cannot be hidden anymore and the old ones start disappearing, it will have a positive effect, no denying that! Less and less to find means less and less chance of damage to real sprinklers. Now, saying it's not going to stop it right away would have been correct! In the mean time, if the PTB did indeed make note of bad containers as well as the voluntary moratorium, educate and stop using both....we'd get positive results a bit faster!

Edited April 20, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[Mushtang]

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.

If it's really bothering you that bad that I said it was hard to believe something you said was true, there's always the Report button you could use.

 

I find it hard to believe that you've had to pay $200 to replace 3 sprinkler heads... but I suppose it's possible that you're not good with Do It Yourself projects and are being ripped off by a contractor. Oops, maybe you should report this post too while you're at it, once again I claimed something you said was hard to believe.

[Mushtang]

Saying it won't help is bunk, if they cannot be hidden anymore and the old ones start disappearing, it will have a positive effect, no denying that!

<snip>

In the mean time, if the PTB did indeed make note of bad containers as well as the voluntary moratorium, educate and stop using both....we'd get positive results a bit faster!

In post number 82 you were pretty snarky about nobody calling for a ban. But now you're talking as though someone is suggesting that these containers no longer be allowed. Isn't that pretty much what a ban is? No longer allowing it?

 

So which is it, is someone calling for a ban or not?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Saying it won't help is bunk, if they cannot be hidden anymore and the old ones start disappearing, it will have a positive effect, no denying that!

<snip>

In the mean time, if the PTB did indeed make note of bad containers as well as the voluntary moratorium, educate and stop using both....we'd get positive results a bit faster!

In post number 82 you were pretty snarky about nobody calling for a ban. But now you're talking as though someone is suggesting that these containers no longer be allowed. Isn't that pretty much what a ban is? No longer allowing it?

 

So which is it, is someone calling for a ban or not?

 

I boldened and colored the part you overlooked there!

 

btw...can you show me the "snarky" part of my telling sbell the call wasn't for a ban? Since when is merely pointing out a fact now being snarky? Snarky was the sbell remark calling my post trolling. Donn't make assumptions, they aren't helpful for the sake of the discussion.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[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.

 

I won't say all, but a great majority of the sprinklers out there are pretty much enclosed so that a rock cannot get inside of it and cause it to stay up, sand and dirt will do this. However, a simple tap of the head will get it to go back down in 99% of these cases. Knowing that most commercial properties use commercial brand sprinklers instead of the cheaper ones sold at Wally World, I can tell you that my statement about the mower guy won't make such mistakes too often is on target...we're talking between $50-$300 per head for many of these systems.

 

How do the heads look when broken? If chopped off and laying in pieces, I would agree with the mower getting it, if disassembled, then the mower isn't the culprit. You'll note, however, I have not said the cacher is the sole suspect.

 

As to Toz's assessment that stopping them from being placed won't help....stopping placing such caches in places which are prone to problems is a good start, but a better start would indeed be a stop to using these containers altogether. Saying it won't help is bunk, if they cannot be hidden anymore and the old ones start disappearing, it will have a positive effect, no denying that! Less and less to find means less and less chance of damage to real sprinklers. Now, saying it's not going to stop it right away would have been correct! In the mean time, if the PTB did indeed make note of bad containers as well as the voluntary moratorium, educate and stop using both....we'd get positive results a bit faster!

 

The one's I saw were clearly destroyed, not dissasembled. Not sure I know enough about them to tell whether or not they were pricey or wally world brand, they are black plastic with a gray top. I often see them recessed into the ground but frequently not all the way down, and at angles looking like they had been jarred from their original location.

 

Again though, the one's I've seen that were destroyed were splintered, the casing broken with sharp edges and pieces scattered around over several feet. Definately looked like a lawn mower to me.

[Mushtang]

Saying it won't help is bunk, if they cannot be hidden anymore and the old ones start disappearing, it will have a positive effect, no denying that!

<snip>

In the mean time, if the PTB did indeed make note of bad containers as well as the voluntary moratorium, educate and stop using both....we'd get positive results a bit faster!

In post number 82 you were pretty snarky about nobody calling for a ban. But now you're talking as though someone is suggesting that these containers no longer be allowed. Isn't that pretty much what a ban is? No longer allowing it?

 

So which is it, is someone calling for a ban or not?

I boldened and colored the part you overlooked there!

 

btw...can you show me the "snarky" part of my telling sbell the call wasn't for a ban? Since when is merely pointing out a fact now being snarky? Snarky was the sbell remark calling my post trolling. Donn't make assumptions, they aren't helpful for the sake of the discussion.

So what did you mean by "cannot be hidden" & "and stop using"? Those sure make it sound like you're responding to someone calling for a ban to me. If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. Didn't mean to upset you.

[+sbell111]

...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.

I think that you may be making the same point that I tried to make in the post that you referenced:

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.

You see, the real problem with many of the posts to this thread is that they are assuming that a cacher is responsible for damage that is near caches that he neither owns nor has sought. Edited April 20, 2009 by sbell111

[+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.

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.

You might want to look at those posts again. No one violated the forum guidelines.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Saying it won't help is bunk, if they cannot be hidden anymore and the old ones start disappearing, it will have a positive effect, no denying that!

<snip>

In the mean time, if the PTB did indeed make note of bad containers as well as the voluntary moratorium, educate and stop using both....we'd get positive results a bit faster!

In post number 82 you were pretty snarky about nobody calling for a ban. But now you're talking as though someone is suggesting that these containers no longer be allowed. Isn't that pretty much what a ban is? No longer allowing it?

 

So which is it, is someone calling for a ban or not?

I boldened and colored the part you overlooked there!

 

btw...can you show me the "snarky" part of my telling sbell the call wasn't for a ban? Since when is merely pointing out a fact now being snarky? Snarky was the sbell remark calling my post trolling. Donn't make assumptions, they aren't helpful for the sake of the discussion.

So what did you mean by "cannot be hidden" & "and stop using"? Those sure make it sound like you're responding to someone calling for a ban to me. If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. Didn't mean to upset you.

 

Just as I said, if we stop using them, the problem will go away. On CAN voluntarily stop using something, we don't need to be forced to stop! I can see where you got stuck on the cannot, I should have said are not.

 

Now, who's being snarky here??

[Mushtang]

Saying it won't help is bunk, if they cannot be hidden anymore and the old ones start disappearing, it will have a positive effect, no denying that!

<snip>

In the mean time, if the PTB did indeed make note of bad containers as well as the voluntary moratorium, educate and stop using both....we'd get positive results a bit faster!

In post number 82 you were pretty snarky about nobody calling for a ban. But now you're talking as though someone is suggesting that these containers no longer be allowed. Isn't that pretty much what a ban is? No longer allowing it?

 

So which is it, is someone calling for a ban or not?

I boldened and colored the part you overlooked there!

 

btw...can you show me the "snarky" part of my telling sbell the call wasn't for a ban? Since when is merely pointing out a fact now being snarky? Snarky was the sbell remark calling my post trolling. Donn't make assumptions, they aren't helpful for the sake of the discussion.

So what did you mean by "cannot be hidden" & "and stop using"? Those sure make it sound like you're responding to someone calling for a ban to me. If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. Didn't mean to upset you.

Just as I said, if we stop using them, the problem will go away. On CAN voluntarily stop using something, we don't need to be forced to stop! I can see where you got stuck on the cannot, I should have said are not.

 

Now, who's being snarky here??

You are.

[+sbell111]

Saying it won't help is bunk, if they cannot be hidden anymore and the old ones start disappearing, it will have a positive effect, no denying that!

<snip>

In the mean time, if the PTB did indeed make note of bad containers as well as the voluntary moratorium, educate and stop using both....we'd get positive results a bit faster!

In post number 82 you were pretty snarky about nobody calling for a ban. But now you're talking as though someone is suggesting that these containers no longer be allowed. Isn't that pretty much what a ban is? No longer allowing it?

 

So which is it, is someone calling for a ban or not?

I boldened and colored the part you overlooked there!

 

btw...can you show me the "snarky" part of my telling sbell the call wasn't for a ban? Since when is merely pointing out a fact now being snarky? Snarky was the sbell remark calling my post trolling. Donn't make assumptions, they aren't helpful for the sake of the discussion.

So what did you mean by "cannot be hidden" & "and stop using"? Those sure make it sound like you're responding to someone calling for a ban to me. If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. Didn't mean to upset you.

 

Just as I said, if we stop using them, the problem will go away. On CAN voluntarily stop using something, we don't need to be forced to stop! I can see where you got stuck on the cannot, I should have said are not.

 

Now, who's being snarky here??

How would the so-called problem go away? People are already trained. You won't untrain them simply by not hiding more of them.

 

A better plan would be to train geocachers to not break stuff.

[+Rockin Roddy]

How would the so-called problem go away? People are already trained. You won't untrain them simply by not hiding more of them.

 

A better plan would be to train geocachers to not break stuff.

 

Less hides of this fashion means less chances of the problem happening. When all caches are gone (a long ways down the road), no problem at all. I also said education would be a great help, no one solution is out there, it would take a bunch of little changes as someone has said! Another idea which would be helpful is to mention there's no need to check sprinklers if your cache is near one, don't hide them near real sprinklers etc.

[GreyLurk]

I'm a little confused by this whole thread... In my experience (having found only one sprinkler head cache), the sprinkler caches are easy to differentiate from real sprinkler heads by lightly pulling on the head. If it comes up easily, then it may be a cache, and if there's any resistance at all, then it's probably a real head. Are people seriously disassembling the sprinkler heads while they're still in the ground?

 

Perhaps I'm just looking at the wrong class of Caches, but I've never seen one where I actually had to disassemble something that is solidly connected to the ground or another piece of "scenery". This sounds like it just falls under the category of making fun of dumb cachers until they stop

[+Renegade Knight]

...

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.

You see, the real problem with many of the posts to this thread is that they are assuming that a cacher is responsible for damage that is near caches that he neither owns nor has sought.

Fair enough.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm a little confused by this whole thread... In my experience (having found only one sprinkler head cache), the sprinkler caches are easy to differentiate from real sprinkler heads by lightly pulling on the head. If it comes up easily, then it may be a cache, and if there's any resistance at all, then it's probably a real head....

 

I agree. However I learned that the hard way having just gone to unscrew the cache in place and learned that it was a sprinkler head.

 

Now I tug. If it doesn't come up I'm going to play it safe and assume it's real.

[+tozainamboku]

How would the so-called problem go away? People are already trained. You won't untrain them simply by not hiding more of them.

 

A better plan would be to train geocachers to not break stuff.

 

Less hides of this fashion means less chances of the problem happening. When all caches are gone (a long ways down the road), no problem at all. I also said education would be a great help, no one solution is out there, it would take a bunch of little changes as someone has said! Another idea which would be helpful is to mention there's no need to check sprinklers if your cache is near one, don't hide them near real sprinklers etc.

I understand the concern that some types of caches may lead to a small number geocaches doing something stupid or even giving land managers an excuse to blame problems on geocaching even if this is not the cause. These problems may give geocaching a bad rep, make it harder to convince land managers and property owners to give permission for caches to be placed, and possibly even result in laws being passed restricting or outlawing geocaching. The solution that some people are proposing seems to be to want to ban caches one type at time until there are no caches these problems can be blamed on. Perhaps banning is too strong a term. But ultimately, a call for TPTB to indicate that some kinds of hides need to be restricted, even voluntarily, sounds like a ban to me.

 

I hate to sound like the NRA, but sprinkler caches don't destroy real sprinklers. Cachers who carelessly disassemble someone's property because they haven't yet learned to distinguish a real sprinkler from a cache may destroy some sprinklers. It is likely that more sprinklers are destroyed by lawn mowers, heavy equipment, vandalism, and curious children. The best response to the land managers who are concerned that geocaching may lead to damage to property is to educate geocachers about the existing guidelines. Just because you have found a geocache disguised as a sprinkler head does not mean you need to disassemble real sprinkler heads when you are searching for a cache. If you are not sure if this is real or not, leave it alone. There is no shame in a DNF <- this is the real education that needs to be done. Perhaps someone has found a real sprinkler head that someone took apart to hide a micro inside. I would consider a cache like this to a violation of the guideline and in need of an SBA already. (Though I suspect some would say if the sprinkler still functions despite a micro inside it then this is a legal hide).

 

The idea of banning or restricting caches that might cause a problem worries me. If taken to its logical conclusion, then all geocaches should be banned. I found a cache this past Saturday on a trail in a State Park. It is over a mile from the trailhead and at least 1000 ft of elevation gain. The cache was originally an ammo can and I'm told it had a Geocaching sticker on it. Some muggles found the cache and reported it as a bomb to the park ranger despite the relatively remote location. The ranger confiscated the ammo can but was nice enough to return it to the cache owner and to allow him to rehide the cache so long as he used a different type of container. Following the logic of those who want a moratorium on sprinkler caches, it is time for a voluntary moratorium on hiding ammo cans a mile or more up a trail Any cache can be perceived by a muggle or a park ranger as the cause of a problem. You may feel good about being proactive and getting the cache types you think are causing the most problems restricted before they cause the parks to ban all caching. But in the end you will not accomplish anything until you have banned all caches yourself.

[+Rockin Roddy]

How would the so-called problem go away? People are already trained. You won't untrain them simply by not hiding more of them.

 

A better plan would be to train geocachers to not break stuff.

 

Less hides of this fashion means less chances of the problem happening. When all caches are gone (a long ways down the road), no problem at all. I also said education would be a great help, no one solution is out there, it would take a bunch of little changes as someone has said! Another idea which would be helpful is to mention there's no need to check sprinklers if your cache is near one, don't hide them near real sprinklers etc.

I understand the concern that some types of caches may lead to a small number geocaches doing something stupid or even giving land managers an excuse to blame problems on geocaching even if this is not the cause. These problems may give geocaching a bad rep, make it harder to convince land managers and property owners to give permission for caches to be placed, and possibly even result in laws being passed restricting or outlawing geocaching. The solution that some people are proposing seems to be to want to ban caches one type at time until there are no caches these problems can be blamed on. Perhaps banning is too strong a term. But ultimately, a call for TPTB to indicate that some kinds of hides need to be restricted, even voluntarily, sounds like a ban to me.

 

I hate to sound like the NRA, but sprinkler caches don't destroy real sprinklers. Cachers who carelessly disassemble someone's property because they haven't yet learned to distinguish a real sprinkler from a cache may destroy some sprinklers. It is likely that more sprinklers are destroyed by lawn mowers, heavy equipment, vandalism, and curious children. The best response to the land managers who are concerned that geocaching may lead to damage to property is to educate geocachers about the existing guidelines. Just because you have found a geocache disguised as a sprinkler head does not mean you need to disassemble real sprinkler heads when you are searching for a cache. If you are not sure if this is real or not, leave it alone. There is no shame in a DNF <- this is the real education that needs to be done. Perhaps someone has found a real sprinkler head that someone took apart to hide a micro inside. I would consider a cache like this to a violation of the guideline and in need of an SBA already. (Though I suspect some would say if the sprinkler still functions despite a micro inside it then this is a legal hide).

 

The idea of banning or restricting caches that might cause a problem worries me. If taken to its logical conclusion, then all geocaches should be banned. I found a cache this past Saturday on a trail in a State Park. It is over a mile from the trailhead and at least 1000 ft of elevation gain. The cache was originally an ammo can and I'm told it had a Geocaching sticker on it. Some muggles found the cache and reported it as a bomb to the park ranger despite the relatively remote location. The ranger confiscated the ammo can but was nice enough to return it to the cache owner and to allow him to rehide the cache so long as he used a different type of container. Following the logic of those who want a moratorium on sprinkler caches, it is time for a voluntary moratorium on hiding ammo cans a mile or more up a trail Any cache can be perceived by a muggle or a park ranger as the cause of a problem. You may feel good about being proactive and getting the cache types you think are causing the most problems restricted before they cause the parks to ban all caching. But in the end you will not accomplish anything until you have banned all caches yourself.

 

No one is calling for a ban, but I'm sure we're all going to see that brought back up time after time, I wish posters would bring help instead of misconceptions. Can you point out where ANYONE said restrictions and the PTB in the same sentence even??

 

It would help this discussion if people actually read and tried to understand what is written before posting, we'd not need to go back over it again and again...

[4wheelin_fool]

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.

If it's really bothering you that bad that I said it was hard to believe something you said was true, there's always the Report button you could use.

 

I find it hard to believe that you've had to pay $200 to replace 3 sprinkler heads... but I suppose it's possible that you're not good with Do It Yourself projects and are being ripped off by a contractor. Oops, maybe you should report this post too while you're at it, once again I claimed something you said was hard to believe.

 

and he never noticed that the "cachers" that destroyed the sprinkler heads looked very similar to the same people that charged him $200 to repair them..

Edited April 21, 2009 by 4wheelin_fool

[+KBI]

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.

Hmmm.

 

I've pondered this post, but .... nope, I still can't agree with that viewpoint.

 

If you truly agree with me and my et-als that it is the seeker -- not the hider -- who is the responsible party, then why would you simultaneously attempt to excuse the vandalism by using a term like "attractive nuisance?" That term was invented by lawyers to defend children -- children who are presumed to be too immature to use good judgement.

 

Google:

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to

children

trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract

children

who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.

Sure, some cachers are actual children, but if they are too young to know better and are out caching without supervision then that is the fault of their parents. NOT the cache owner.

 

Your use of the term "attractive nuisance" presupposes that no cache seeker should ever be expected to know any better than to rip up irrigation equipment. You are excusing inexcusable behavior, and have put the onus back on the hider. I still disagree with that. I prefer not to give excuses and free passes to those who really should know better.

 

Blaming a cache owner for the destructive behavior of vandals, by claiming the target was simply too 'attractive' for the poor seeker victim to control himself, is a bit like blaming the rape victim instead of the rapist. "It's her fault. She was guilty of being too attractive. He couldn't help it. She was asking for it." Should we now call for a "voluntary moratorium" on attractive women, and suggest that they might want to ugly it up a bit? Or should we instead place 100% of the responsibility where it rightly belongs?

 

In fact, let's listen to the above quoted reasoning once again, this time with that analogy in mind, and the fallacy will become clear:

 

I agree ... that the problem is ultimately with the [rapist], not the [female]. However, we seem to have enough [rapists] who are unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate [dating] techniques that I believe a voluntary moratorium, or at least some disapprobation, is called for. [Pretty girls] are a kind of "attractive nuisance" in that they encourage [rapists] to use inappropriate [physical contact].

Edited April 21, 2009 by KBI

[+Glenn]

I'm a little confused by this whole thread... In my experience (having found only one sprinkler head cache), the sprinkler caches are easy to differentiate from real sprinkler heads by lightly pulling on the head. If it comes up easily, then it may be a cache, and if there's any resistance at all, then it's probably a real head....

 

I agree. However I learned that the hard way having just gone to unscrew the cache in place and learned that it was a sprinkler head.

 

Now I tug. If it doesn't come up I'm going to play it safe and assume it's real.

 

Play it safe and you'd miss out on a cache hidden in this Sprinkler Hide a Key. Tugging won't open it. You have to unscrew it. The one I found was attached to some gray PVC stick in the ground. I don't know how the PVC got there but it looked a lot more weathered than the Sprinkler Hide a Key.

 

[+fizzymagic]

Blaming a cache owner for the destructive behavior of vandals, by claiming the target was simply too 'attractive' for the poor seeker victim to control himself, is a bit like blaming the rape victim instead of the rapist.

No, it's not. But I don't expect you to grasp the difference.

 

Are you saying that hiding caches in fake sprinkler heads does not encourage people to look for fake sprinkler heads?

 

Ooooo-kay.

[+Rockin Roddy]

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.

Hmmm.

 

I've pondered this post, but .... nope, I still can't agree with that viewpoint.

 

If you truly agree with me and my et-als that it is the seeker -- not the hider -- who is the responsible party, then why would you simultaneously attempt to excuse the vandalism by using a term like "attractive nuisance?" That term was invented by lawyers to defend children -- children who are presumed to be too immature to use good judgement.

 

Google:

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to

children

trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract

children

who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.

Sure, some cachers are actual children, but if they are too young to know better and are out caching without supervision then that is the fault of their parents. NOT the cache owner.

 

Your use of the term "attractive nuisance" presupposes that no cache seeker should ever be expected to know any better than to rip up irrigation equipment. You are excusing inexcusable behavior, and have put the onus back on the hider. I still disagree with that. I prefer not to give excuses and free passes to those who really should know better.

 

Blaming a cache owner for the destructive behavior of vandals, by claiming the target was simply too 'attractive' for the poor seeker victim to control himself, is a bit like blaming the rape victim instead of the rapist. "It's her fault. She was guilty of being too attractive. He couldn't help it. She was asking for it." Should we now call for a "voluntary moratorium" on attractive women, and suggest that they might want to ugly it up a bit? Or should we instead place 100% of the responsibility where it rightly belongs?

 

In fact, let's listen to the above quoted reasoning once again, this time with that analogy in mind, and the fallacy will become clear:

 

I agree ... that the problem is ultimately with the [rapist], not the [female]. However, we seem to have enough [rapists] who are unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate [dating] techniques that I believe a voluntary moratorium, or at least some disapprobation, is called for. [Pretty girls] are a kind of "attractive nuisance" in that they encourage [rapists] to use inappropriate [physical contact].

[+sbell111]

How would the so-called problem go away? People are already trained. You won't untrain them simply by not hiding more of them.

 

A better plan would be to train geocachers to not break stuff.

Less hides of this fashion means less chances of the problem happening. When all caches are gone (a long ways down the road), no problem at all. I also said education would be a great help, no one solution is out there, it would take a bunch of little changes as someone has said! Another idea which would be helpful is to mention there's no need to check sprinklers if your cache is near one, don't hide them near real sprinklers etc.

I understand the concern that some types of caches may lead to a small number geocaches doing something stupid or even giving land managers an excuse to blame problems on geocaching even if this is not the cause. These problems may give geocaching a bad rep, make it harder to convince land managers and property owners to give permission for caches to be placed, and possibly even result in laws being passed restricting or outlawing geocaching. The solution that some people are proposing seems to be to want to ban caches one type at time until there are no caches these problems can be blamed on. Perhaps banning is too strong a term. But ultimately, a call for TPTB to indicate that some kinds of hides need to be restricted, even voluntarily, sounds like a ban to me.

 

I hate to sound like the NRA, but sprinkler caches don't destroy real sprinklers. Cachers who carelessly disassemble someone's property because they haven't yet learned to distinguish a real sprinkler from a cache may destroy some sprinklers. It is likely that more sprinklers are destroyed by lawn mowers, heavy equipment, vandalism, and curious children. The best response to the land managers who are concerned that geocaching may lead to damage to property is to educate geocachers about the existing guidelines. Just because you have found a geocache disguised as a sprinkler head does not mean you need to disassemble real sprinkler heads when you are searching for a cache. If you are not sure if this is real or not, leave it alone. There is no shame in a DNF <- this is the real education that needs to be done. Perhaps someone has found a real sprinkler head that someone took apart to hide a micro inside. I would consider a cache like this to a violation of the guideline and in need of an SBA already. (Though I suspect some would say if the sprinkler still functions despite a micro inside it then this is a legal hide).

 

The idea of banning or restricting caches that might cause a problem worries me. If taken to its logical conclusion, then all geocaches should be banned. I found a cache this past Saturday on a trail in a State Park. It is over a mile from the trailhead and at least 1000 ft of elevation gain. The cache was originally an ammo can and I'm told it had a Geocaching sticker on it. Some muggles found the cache and reported it as a bomb to the park ranger despite the relatively remote location. The ranger confiscated the ammo can but was nice enough to return it to the cache owner and to allow him to rehide the cache so long as he used a different type of container. Following the logic of those who want a moratorium on sprinkler caches, it is time for a voluntary moratorium on hiding ammo cans a mile or more up a trail Any cache can be perceived by a muggle or a park ranger as the cause of a problem. You may feel good about being proactive and getting the cache types you think are causing the most problems restricted before they cause the parks to ban all caching. But in the end you will not accomplish anything until you have banned all caches yourself.

No one is calling for a ban, but I'm sure we're all going to see that brought back up time after time, I wish posters would bring help instead of misconceptions. Can you point out where ANYONE said restrictions and the PTB in the same sentence even??

Just a few posts up, you argue that the 'problem' will exist until "all caches are gone". I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you meant "all sprinkler head caches are gone". (Otherwise, Toz's post would be very on-the-nose, wouldn't it?)

 

Therefore, it is quite clear that you are calling for a ban. Perhaps, you are not arguing that TPTB should enforce this ban, but certainly they would be banned, no matter who enforces it.

 

Play it safe and you'd miss out on a cache hidden in this Sprinkler Hide a Key. Tugging won't open it. You have to unscrew it. The one I found was attached to some gray PVC stick in the ground. I don't know how the PVC got there but it looked a lot more weathered than the Sprinkler Hide a Key.

That is a really cool container, but anyone should be able to recognize it as a fake simply by taking a close look at it.

[knowschad]

 

Play it safe and you'd miss out on a cache hidden in this Sprinkler Hide a Key. Tugging won't open it. You have to unscrew it. The one I found was attached to some gray PVC stick in the ground. I don't know how the PVC got there but it looked a lot more weathered than the Sprinkler Hide a Key.

 

 

I emailed the company and asked if they would mind putting a voluntary moritorium on selling them. They replied that they had no problem with that. They will be issuing a recall later in the week.

[knowschad]

 

Are you saying that hiding caches in fake sprinkler heads does not encourage people to look for fake sprinkler heads?

 

Ooooo-kay.

 

I think that we can all agree with that statement.

Edited April 21, 2009 by knowschad

[Mushtang]

Are you saying that hiding caches in fake sprinkler heads does not encourage people to look for fake sprinkler heads?

 

Ooooo-kay.

I think that we can all agree with that statement.

I don't not disagree with what that statement doesn't mean.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

Therefore, it is quite clear that you are calling for a ban. Perhaps, you are not arguing that TPTB should enforce this ban, but certainly they would be banned, no matter who enforces it.

 

Can you or ANYONE tell me how voluntarily stopping placing these cacehs is calling for a ban? If eveyone agrees to stop using these, we are not callinng for anyting more than use of common sense and not placing these caches. NATURALLY, some will still place them, hopefully most will understand that these are bad and will VOLUNTARILY stop using them, or at least place them where they will NOT cause problems.

 

A ban is asking the PTB to MAKE people stop using them, there is a difference!

 

ETA...in an ideal situation, NO more caches of this type would be great, but we all know some cachers won't stop. And last, looking at the fake sprinkler head, how would anyone be able to tell it's fake simply by looking?? There's no way to tell until you actually start messing with it.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[knowschad]

Can you or ANYONE tell me how voluntarily stopping placing these cacehs is calling for a ban? If eveyone agrees to stop using these,

 

Rod, "everyone" does not read these messages. In fact, very few cachers do, in my experience. It sounds as though you have already voluntarily stopped placing sprinkler head hides. That is the best you can do.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Can you or ANYONE tell me how voluntarily stopping placing these cacehs is calling for a ban? If eveyone agrees to stop using these,

 

Rod, "everyone" does not read these messages. In fact, very few cachers do, in my experience. It sounds as though you have already voluntarily stopped placing sprinkler head hides. That is the best you can do.

 

No, not the best at all, but I hear you. The best would be to actually ask the PTB to educate (as I mentioned before), and to educate as well on our own. This can be done simply by emailing an owner of such a cache and letting them know of the potential problem (which is likely to be met with mixed results, but the good is better than not trying at all). Asking TPTB to help with the education is likely a dead end, but it doesn't hurt to try there either!

 

I've never hidden one of these caches, I own too many expensive real sprinklers to do something so irresponsible. If people are never told of the potential problem, the potential problem never goes away!! I would add that I have no illusion that these caches will ever completely stop being used, but we can minimalize the potential for damages if we all use common sense and educate those who don't!!

Edited April 21, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Castle Mischief]

No, not the best at all, but I hear you. The best would be to actually ask the PTB to educate (as I mentioned before), and to educate as well on our own. This can be done simply by emailing an owner of such a cache and letting them know of the potential problem (which is likely to be met with mixed results, but the good is better than not trying at all). Asking TPTB to help with the education is likely a dead end, but it doesn't hurt to try there either!

 

I've never hidden one of these caches, I own too many expensive real sprinklers to do something so irresponsible. If people are never told of the potential problem, the potential problem never goes away!! I would add that I have no illusion that these caches will ever completely stop being used, but we can minimalize the potential for damages if we all use common sense and educate those who don't!!

 

Roddy, I'm picking up what you're laying down, but I'm not too sure how I would take an unsolicited email telling me that I was irresponsible, lacked common sense, and needed to remove my cache. I trust that you're wording that as an informative note and coating it with honey?

 

Full disclosure: I've never found or searched for one of these nor do I own one. I have nothing against them, but sometimes problems are best avoided. I accept that there is a percentage of cachers that lack common sense and I choose to not lead the fools to water.

[+KBI]

Blaming a cache owner for the destructive behavior of vandals, by claiming the target was simply too 'attractive' for the poor seeker victim to control himself, is a bit like blaming the rape victim instead of the rapist.

No, it's not. But I don't expect you to grasp the difference.

 

Are you saying that hiding caches in fake sprinkler heads does not encourage people to look for fake sprinkler heads?

 

Ooooo-kay.

No, I never said hiding caches in fake sprinkler heads does not encourage people to look for fake sprinkler heads. I never said that because I don't believe it, and neither does anyone else. That's asinine. For you to suggest that I did say it constitutes yet another strawman. You are tossing in something I didn't say and making it sound like that's my argument. (But I don't expect you to grasp the difference.)

 

No, what I AM saying is that I don't understand why you seek to censure the innocent while excusing the culprit.

[+Rockin Roddy]

No, not the best at all, but I hear you. The best would be to actually ask the PTB to educate (as I mentioned before), and to educate as well on our own. This can be done simply by emailing an owner of such a cache and letting them know of the potential problem (which is likely to be met with mixed results, but the good is better than not trying at all). Asking TPTB to help with the education is likely a dead end, but it doesn't hurt to try there either!

 

I've never hidden one of these caches, I own too many expensive real sprinklers to do something so irresponsible. If people are never told of the potential problem, the potential problem never goes away!! I would add that I have no illusion that these caches will ever completely stop being used, but we can minimalize the potential for damages if we all use common sense and educate those who don't!!

 

Roddy, I'm picking up what you're laying down, but I'm not too sure how I would take an unsolicited email telling me that I was irresponsible, lacked common sense, and needed to remove my cache. I trust that you're wording that as an informative note and coating it with honey?

 

Full disclosure: I've never found or searched for one of these nor do I own one. I have nothing against them, but sometimes problems are best avoided. I accept that there is a percentage of cachers that lack common sense and I choose to not lead the fools to water.

 

There's certainly friendly ways to let an owner know their cache is possibly a problem. Many cachers wouldn't even know this is a problem.

[+KBI]

... 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.

Take it from me. Accusing another forum poster of lying is apparently quite acceptable. There is another who lurks in these parts who makes a regular habit of calling me a liar. Despite my many complaints, nothing is ever done.

 

Besides: If you don't want people calling you names (not that anyone has done that here), you might want to start by setting a better personal example than referring to all those who disagree with you as "fools."

[+tozainamboku]

 

Therefore, it is quite clear that you are calling for a ban. Perhaps, you are not arguing that TPTB should enforce this ban, but certainly they would be banned, no matter who enforces it.

 

Can you or ANYONE tell me how voluntarily stopping placing these cacehs is calling for a ban? If eveyone agrees to stop using these, we are not callinng for anyting more than use of common sense and not placing these caches. NATURALLY, some will still place them, hopefully most will understand that these are bad and will VOLUNTARILY stop using them, or at least place them where they will NOT cause problems.

 

A ban is asking the PTB to MAKE people stop using them, there is a difference!

 

ETA...in an ideal situation, NO more caches of this type would be great, but we all know some cachers won't stop. And last, looking at the fake sprinkler head, how would anyone be able to tell it's fake simply by looking?? There's no way to tell until you actually start messing with it.

I'm really trying understand this. You want the PTB to ask geocachers to not place a certain type of cache. Of course this is an optional requirement so its not a ban. But the PTB will state that a particular technique for hiding caches is never a good idea because some cache seekers are unable to fathom that you don't need to destroy property in order to find a cache. Of course if they give out a mixed message that this cache shouldn't be used and then say that it OK to use, I don't know that it will be effective in stopping hiders from looking for fake sprinklers. So I have to assume you really want the PTB to say "Don't hide sprinkler caches". I don't know whether you want the reviewers to get involved or not - perhaps they could hold up publication of these caches or send a form letter email to hiders suggesting a different technique. Of course, if Groundspeak could do this for sprinkler caches, its only a matter of time before someone asks for a voluntary moratorium on lamp post hides.

 

I'm not convinced that simply asking people to stop hiding a particular kind of cache because a few numskulls are damaging real property because they can't distinguish real from a cache is going to make any difference. Existing guidelines make it clear that destruction of property for the purposed of hiding a cache, providing a clue, or as a method of logging is not permitted. A cache that required you to take apart a real sprinkler that you could not put back exactly as you found it is already against the guidelines. All the sprinkler caches that I have found are placed in reasonable area where as a geocacher I can tell this is a fake sprinkler either by looking at it or by just giving a little tug to see it isn't attached to anything. Granted some have been placed in areas where there are lots of real sprinklers and when the hint indicates the cache is a fake sprinkler, I, like many other cachers, have a tendency to examine those real sprinklers a bit more closely than they need to be. A more effective voluntary moratorium would be on placing caches near real sprinklers. If they are no real sprinklers near a cache then there is nothing for the numskulls to take apart. In fact, whether or not there are any fake sprinkler caches anywhere, people will have heard about these and they will examine the sprinklers near ground zero. Some people will disassemble sprinklers because they think the cache may be inside, and some real sprinklers may be hard to put back together once they are taken apart. The way to stop this is to stop hiding caches near sprinklers (or anything else that someone might take apart or destroy in order to find a cache).

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

Therefore, it is quite clear that you are calling for a ban. Perhaps, you are not arguing that TPTB should enforce this ban, but certainly they would be banned, no matter who enforces it.

 

Can you or ANYONE tell me how voluntarily stopping placing these cacehs is calling for a ban? If eveyone agrees to stop using these, we are not callinng for anyting more than use of common sense and not placing these caches. NATURALLY, some will still place them, hopefully most will understand that these are bad and will VOLUNTARILY stop using them, or at least place them where they will NOT cause problems.

 

A ban is asking the PTB to MAKE people stop using them, there is a difference!

 

ETA...in an ideal situation, NO more caches of this type would be great, but we all know some cachers won't stop. And last, looking at the fake sprinkler head, how would anyone be able to tell it's fake simply by looking?? There's no way to tell until you actually start messing with it.

I'm really trying understand this. You want the PTB to ask geocachers to not place a certain type of cache. Of course this is an optional requirement so its not a ban. But the PTB will state that a particular technique for hiding caches is never a good idea because some cache seekers are unable to fathom that you don't need to destroy property in order to find a cache. Of course if they give out a mixed message that this cache shouldn't be used and then say that it OK to use, I don't know that it will be effective in stopping hiders from looking for fake sprinklers. So I have to assume you really want the PTB to say "Don't hide sprinkler caches". I don't know whether you want the reviewers to get involved or not - perhaps they could hold up publication of these caches or send a form letter email to hiders suggesting a different technique. Of course, if Groundspeak could do this for sprinkler caches, its only a matter of time before someone asks for a voluntary moratorium on lamp post hides.

 

I'm not convinced that simply asking people to stop hiding a particular kind of cache because a few numskulls are damaging real property because they can't distinguish real from a cache is going to make any difference. Existing guidelines make it clear that destruction of property for the purposed of hiding a cache, providing a clue, or as a method of logging is not permitted. A cache that required you to take apart a real sprinkler that you could not put back exactly as you found it is already against the guidelines. All the sprinkler caches that I have found are placed in reasonable area where as a geocacher I can tell this is a fake sprinkler either by looking at it or by just giving a little tug to see it isn't attached to anything. Granted some have been placed in areas where there are lots of real sprinklers and when the hint indicates the cache is a fake sprinkler, I, like many other cachers, have a tendency to examine those real sprinklers a bit more closely than they need to be. A more effective voluntary moratorium would be on placing caches near real sprinklers. If they are no real sprinklers near a cache then there is nothing for the numskulls to take apart. In fact, whether or not there are any fake sprinkler caches anywhere, people will have heard about these and they will examine the sprinklers near ground zero. Some people will disassemble sprinklers because they think the cache may be inside, and some real sprinklers may be hard to put back together once they are taken apart. The way to stop this is to stop hiding caches near sprinklers (or anything else that someone might take apart or destroy in order to find a cache).

 

I read the first sentence and stopped, because either you truly don't understand or you're purposely skewing my words and intentionally "missing the point". Show me where I said I wanted GS to stop people from hiding these caches. Show me where I even suggested that I wanted GS to ask cachers not to place them. I said educate!

 

It seems you're really NOT trying to understand. I believe it has already been said not to place them near real ones, that's a GREAT start! Having a cache near a real sprinkler head isn't a problem UNLESS it's a hard to find and then the problem can be minimized simply by posting there's no need to check the sprinklers. Won't solve it completely, some aren't going to read the description...but it does minimize!

Edited April 21, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+tozainamboku]

I read the first sentence and stopped, because either you truly don't understand or you're purposely skewing my words and intentionally "missing the point". Show me where I said I wanted GS to stop people from hiding these caches. Show me where I even suggested that I wanted GS to ask cachers not to place them. I said educate!

The first sentence says "I'm really trying to understand this." Apparently either I am really dense or you haven't made your point clearly.

 

Perhaps we are more in agreement than either of us realizes. We need to educate cachers about the current guidelines. As written, you should never have to damage property in order to find a cache. Cache hides that require someone to damage property are, IMO, already in violation of the guidelines. The overwhelming majority of sprinkler caches (including every one that I have ever found) can be found without taking apart a real sprinkler head. (I have heard of micros hidden inside real sprinkler heads and I might agree to some guideline change here as someone may have trouble reassembling the sprinkler head after finding the cache inside). I do agree that when someone hides one of these where there are real sprinkler heads nearby, some cachers may examine the real sprinkler head more closely then they need to be. I will admit that I have done this in the past. Like RK, when I realized how complex the workings of these sprinkler heads can be, I stopped doing this. Fortunately, I never disassembled one to the point I couldn't put it back, but I saw enough to know that this is a possibility. Rather than a "voluntary moratorium", I could see some education in the form of updates to the pages on hiding a cache. Hiders need to realize that some geocachers are idiots. They will damage or destroy property rather than log a DNF. So when hiding a cache you should be aware of what is in the location you choose. Consider what may happen if you get someone who insists that when they can't find a cache it must be hidden in a location that requires them to take apart something they might not be able to put back together. If there is something like that near the location where you are hiding a cache, consider moving your cache to a different location or consider putting in a spoiler hint (hoping the idiots will at least read the hint before they start destroying). I blame the destructions on the idiots that did the destruction. But I agree that cache hiders can try to limit the chance of destruction by considering where they place a cache. Where I disagree with Rockin Roddy is to blame some hiding technique that can be used effectively to keep muggles from finding caches while allowing responsible cacher seekers to find the cache.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Where I disagree with Rockin Roddy is to blame some hiding technique that can be used effectively to keep muggles from finding caches while allowing responsible cacher seekers to find the cache.

 

I was with you...right up to here. What then do we blame? If not for a cache like this, we'd not have people ripping them apart. Until the child found a cookie in the jar, that cookie jar was safe. If all cachers were responsible, we'd not have to have this discussion! I agree with everything you said, but I also agree that we shouldn't use these containers. The problem with finding one in the middle of the sandy beach is that sooner or later, someone will place it right beside the real ones and the cycle continues! New cachers come out every day, someone sees this type and wants to make it an "evil" hide, so they place it where a real one would be. Teaching is a good start, but it certainly won't be the end of the problem!

 

Some see this as a call for a ban...maybe one is needed?? It'll be too late once the landowner believes (doesn't have to prove it) the cacher did the damage. Then, there's problems! Some of the arguments against a ban have shown me that maybe that's just what is needed. Will it happen, doubtful. Let's hope the problem doesn't grow to that point!

 

And no, this is NOT a call to a ban, just seeing this with open eyes!

[+fizzymagic]

No, I never said hiding caches in fake sprinkler heads does not encourage people to look for fake sprinkler heads. I never said that because I don't believe it, and neither does anyone else.

OK, so you are willing to say that those who hide fake sprinkler heads do encourage people to look for fake sprinkler heads?

 

No, what I AM saying is that I don't understand why you seek to censure the innocent while excusing the culprit.

Didn't you just take me to task for using what you called a "strawman" argument? You have made a classic strawman here. I have never said anything about excusing the culprit. In fact, I explicitly said that the sulprit is fully responsible for their own actions.

 

Here's a hint for you: Discussion of these topics works a lot better when you actually pay attention to what other people write.

[+tozainamboku]

Where I disagree with Rockin Roddy is to blame some hiding technique that can be used effectively to keep muggles from finding caches while allowing responsible cacher seekers to find the cache.

 

I was with you...right up to here. What then do we blame?

We blame the people who did the damage. Does that mean that hiders can't take precautions for their caches by not placing caches where there is equipment that might be damaged? No, I agree that we can chose not place caches that provide an opportunity for idiots to do damage.

If not for a cache like this, we'd not have people ripping them apart. Until the child found a cookie in the jar, that cookie jar was safe. If all cachers were responsible, we'd not have to have this discussion! I agree with everything you said, but I also agree that we shouldn't use these containers. The problem with finding one in the middle of the sandy beach is that sooner or later, someone will place it right beside the real ones and the cycle continues! New cachers come out every day, someone sees this type and wants to make it an "evil" hide, so they place it where a real one would be. Teaching is a good start, but it certainly won't be the end of the problem!

I disagree with most of this. I found my first sprinkler and my first lamppost cache without have ever seen or heard of these techniques. Geocachers are persistent in trying things to see if caches are there. Whether or not someone has ever heard of a a fake sprinkler cache, they will examine sprinklers. Hopefully, most cachers realize you shouldn't destroy someone's property and they stop short of disassembling something they can't put back. Even if your call for a NON BAN, results in fewer of these caches being placed, short of a true ban there will be cachers who will see and copy this hide (or think of it on their own). I agree that sooner or later someone will place one in the middle of a park with a sprinkler system that uses the identical sprinkler head that the cache is made from. The education that is needed is to let cachers know that under the current guidelines there are no caches that require you destroy property, and to let hiders know that not every geocacher is responsible and knows the guidelines so you should avoid placing caches where there is a possible that someone might damage property in their search for a cache.

 

Some see this as a call for a ban...maybe one is needed?? It'll be too late once the landowner believes (doesn't have to prove it) the cacher did the damage. Then, there's problems! Some of the arguments against a ban have shown me that maybe that's just what is needed. Will it happen, doubtful. Let's hope the problem doesn't grow to that point!

 

And no, this is NOT a call to a ban, just seeing this with open eyes!

If the fake sprinkler is the root cause for damage being done to real sprinklers and you don't call for an outright ban, then I can not understand your argument. If the technique itself is the cause of the problem then you ban the technique to eliminate the problem. If you don't blame the technique you can then look at other ways to mitigate the problem.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Where I disagree with Rockin Roddy is to blame some hiding technique that can be used effectively to keep muggles from finding caches while allowing responsible cacher seekers to find the cache.

 

I was with you...right up to here. What then do we blame?

We blame the people who did the damage. Does that mean that hiders can't take precautions for their caches by not placing caches where there is equipment that might be damaged? No, I agree that we can chose not place caches that provide an opportunity for idiots to do damage.

If not for a cache like this, we'd not have people ripping them apart. Until the child found a cookie in the jar, that cookie jar was safe. If all cachers were responsible, we'd not have to have this discussion! I agree with everything you said, but I also agree that we shouldn't use these containers. The problem with finding one in the middle of the sandy beach is that sooner or later, someone will place it right beside the real ones and the cycle continues! New cachers come out every day, someone sees this type and wants to make it an "evil" hide, so they place it where a real one would be. Teaching is a good start, but it certainly won't be the end of the problem!

I disagree with most of this. I found my first sprinkler and my first lamppost cache without have ever seen or heard of these techniques. Geocachers are persistent in trying things to see if caches are there. Whether or not someone has ever heard of a a fake sprinkler cache, they will examine sprinklers. Hopefully, most cachers realize you shouldn't destroy someone's property and they stop short of disassembling something they can't put back. Even if your call for a NON BAN, results in fewer of these caches being placed, short of a true ban there will be cachers who will see and copy this hide (or think of it on their own). I agree that sooner or later someone will place one in the middle of a park with a sprinkler system that uses the identical sprinkler head that the cache is made from. The education that is needed is to let cachers know that under the current guidelines there are no caches that require you destroy property, and to let hiders know that not every geocacher is responsible and knows the guidelines so you should avoid placing caches where there is a possible that someone might damage property in their search for a cache.

 

Some see this as a call for a ban...maybe one is needed?? It'll be too late once the landowner believes (doesn't have to prove it) the cacher did the damage. Then, there's problems! Some of the arguments against a ban have shown me that maybe that's just what is needed. Will it happen, doubtful. Let's hope the problem doesn't grow to that point!

 

And no, this is NOT a call to a ban, just seeing this with open eyes!

If the fake sprinkler is the root cause for damage being done to real sprinklers and you don't call for an outright ban, then I can not understand your argument. If the technique itself is the cause of the problem then you ban the technique to eliminate the problem. If you don't blame the technique you can then look at other ways to mitigate the problem.

 

I came to this very same conclusion as posted above Toz! I think we are pretty much on the same page! In my opinion, this is all about nothing until someone gets caching banned in their parks because of the owner's perception that cachers destroyed their property, then we might see something done!!

 

I truly wish education was the answer, it would be nice to have a simple answer. I can see it helping, but that's as far as it'll go!!

[+KBI]

No, I never said hiding caches in fake sprinkler heads does not encourage people to look for fake sprinkler heads. I never said that because I don't believe it, and neither does anyone else.

OK, so you are willing to say that those who hide fake sprinkler heads do encourage people to look for fake sprinkler heads?

Not only am I willing to say it, but I already have said it. It's why I recommend thoughtful placement on the part of the hider. Which thread are you reading?

 

I have also made it clear I believe the consequences of bumblingly investigating potentially fake sprinkler heads are the responsibility of the seeker, NOT the hider. Smart hiders know how to limit the problem, but I do not believe cache hiders should be held responsible for poor choices made by, or damage caused by, bumbling cache seekers.

 

If burglars begin to show up in your neighborhood stealing electronics, what do you recommend?

 

Do you:

(1) Hold the theives responsible, watch out for them, call the cops on them and press charges when possible, and make sure to keep your doors locked? Or do you

(2) Support a community-wide "voluntary moratorium" on private ownership of consumer electronics based on the idea that the mere existence of these tempting targets is what encourages the thieves?

 

Option (1) holds the thieves 100% responsible. Option (2) excuses the thieves by assuming they simply cannot help themselves, and instead addresses the problem by unjustly asking the innocent residents to voluntarily suffer a loss of freedom.

 

Which option would you recommend, Fizzy?

 

No, what I AM saying is that I don't understand why you seek to censure the innocent while excusing the culprit.

Didn't you just take me to task for using what you called a "strawman" argument? You have made a classic strawman here. I have never said anything about excusing the culprit. In fact, I explicitly said that the sulprit is fully responsible for their own actions.

 

Here's a hint for you: Discussion of these topics works a lot better when you actually pay attention to what other people write.

I read what you wrote. You referred to fake sprinkler head caches as an "attractive nuisance" and suported the proposed voluntary ban. In doing so you effectively blamed the hiders of these caches while excusing the vandals who rip up real sprinkler heads.

 

In the same post you also paradoxically stated you agree with me that "the problem is ultimately with the seeker, not the hider." I simply asked for clarification. Or did you miss that part?

 

I suspect it is you who is not reading.

 

I'm not sure what you're going for here. I can't tell whether we disagree or not. So far in this thread you have not countered anything I've actually posted. Your only rebuttals have been in response to your own various fictitious versions of my arguments. Glorious strawmannery.

 

You also claim emotional injury from thread participants in one post while launching personal attacks against them in another.

 

It's all very entertaining. Please don't stop.

[+fizzymagic]

You referred to fake sprinkler head caches as an "attractive nuisance" and suported the proposed voluntary ban. In doing so you effectively blamed the hiders of these caches while excusing the vandals who rip up real sprinkler heads.

 

Equating a voluntary moratorium on sprinkler-head caches with "blaming hiders" and "excusing vandals" is breathtakingly faulty logic. I think it is time I take the famous advice:

 

"Never argue with an idiot, because they will only bring you down to their level and beat you by experience.- John Guerrero"

[+sbell111]

I don't think that Fizzy was trying to put all the blame on hiders and excuse those finders that cause damage to other cache areas. Rather, I believe that he merely didn't understand what the term he used meant.

[Mushtang]

In fact, I would venture to guess it might even be a violation of the forum guidelines, but I am no expert.

 

idiot

[+Renegade Knight]

...Glorious strawmannery....

 

You use this so much I have to wonder if it really means what you think it means because the way you use it seems to mean. "Your argument can not compare to my glorius strawman puppet, you lose, surrender now and your death shall be merciful. Next!"

[+tozainamboku]

Perhaps we need a voluntary moratorium on strawman arguments in the forums

[+Renegade Knight]

Perhaps we need a voluntary moratorium on strawman arguments in the forums

But we do it for the children!!!

[+sbell111]

At least we have something new to beat with a stick. (The old horse was getting smelly.)

Edited April 22, 2009 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

Perhaps we need a voluntary moratorium on strawman arguments in the forums

 

...followed by a moratorium on pedantic post dissection, passive aggressiveness, outright aggressiveness, overt rudeness, excessive punctuation and multi-tier nested quotes in replies.

[+KBI]

You referred to fake sprinkler head caches as an "attractive nuisance" and suported the proposed voluntary ban. In doing so you effectively blamed the hiders of these caches while excusing the vandals who rip up real sprinkler heads.

Equating a voluntary moratorium on sprinkler-head caches with "blaming hiders" and "excusing vandals" is breathtakingly faulty logic. I think it is time I take the famous advice:

 

"Never argue with an idiot, because they will only bring you down to their level and beat you by experience.- John Guerrero"

Translation:

 

"You disagree with me KBI, therefore you are, by definition, an idiot. I have run out of rational arguments ... but I'm frustrated, so I think I'll lash out with one more ad hominem personal attack on my way out the door."

 

Thanks, Fizzy. I've enjoyed it.