Cache inside a (paid) newspaper box

[+DavidMac]

So a while back we're on a caching run and arrive at a cache site that is a building front and a parking lot completely devoid of hiding spots... except for a solitary newspaper box. I've seen plenty of caches inside those free boxes that contain real estate circulars and the like, but this one housed the local newspaper and required 75 cents to access.

 

We thought, surely somebody wouldn't hide a cache inside the box? But sure enough, after checking it out, we discovered that it was. This sparked a debate over whether this is considered commercial and against the guidelines.

 

I sent an email to the reviewer pointing out the cache but heard no response and no action has been taken on the cache page. I haven't logged it but I'm thinking that I'll just let it go. I'm just wondering whether others think hiding a cache in this manner is an acceptable practice. Too commercial? A guidelines violation?

[+Cpl. Klinger]

So a while back we're on a caching run and arrive at a cache site that is a building front and a parking lot completely devoid of hiding spots... except for a solitary newspaper box. I've seen plenty of caches inside those free boxes that contain real estate circulars and the like, but this one housed the local newspaper and required 75 cents to access.

 

We thought, surely somebody wouldn't hide a cache inside the box? But sure enough, after checking it out, we discovered that it was. This sparked a debate over whether this is considered commercial and against the guidelines.

 

I sent an email to the reviewer pointing out the cache but heard no response and no action has been taken on the cache page. I haven't logged it but I'm thinking that I'll just let it go. I'm just wondering whether others think hiding a cache in this manner is an acceptable practice. Too commercial? A guidelines violation?

 

You know, why didn't you just wait for the reviewer to email you the answer, and then you'd be done? Here, we are just the unwashed masses who follow said guidelines, not enforce them. Really, why can't people wait for their reviewers anymore?

[+Castle Mischief]

I can't speculate* as to what the reviewer or Groundspeak would rule on this, but...

 

Considering the cost of gas and the fuel that I've burned for the sole reason of finding caches, I doubt I'd be upset over $.75. But I also doubt that I would actually spend the $.75 to log the find. Most likely I'd post a DNF and mention a "lack of funds for access."

 

 

*But I will anyway.

I suspect that the cache will be modified in the future, either by the CO at the request of the reviewer or somebody that disagrees with the spending of three quarters.

[+fegan]

My guess (and this is only an optimistic guess) is the cache was on the outside of the box (bottom, back) and some jerk put it inside.

 

You shouldn't have to put $0.75 in the slot just to see if the cache is in there...what if it wasn't there?!

 

Unless it's spelled out in advance on the cache page that there is a fee (entrance fee, parking fee, etc) associated with a cache, I won't pull money out of my pocket on a hunch where the cache might be.

[Keystone]

It's commercial and should be fixed or archived. I turned down a similar cache submission last week.

 

A good forum historian can find Jeremy's post on this subject from a thread years ago. He said (and I'm quoting from memory): "Do we list caches like that? We shouldn't."

[+StarBrand]

Sounds commercial to me. It specifically requires you to buy a specific branded item in order to get to the cache.

 

I'd post a NA log with the reason and let the reviewer sort it out.

[+DavidMac]

You know, why didn't you just wait for the reviewer to email you the answer, and then you'd be done?

 

Hmm... well, I would have thought that 2 weeks would be long enough to await a response

 

My guess (and this is only an optimistic guess) is the cache was on the outside of the box (bottom, back) and some jerk put it inside.

 

That's what we thought at first, but the hint says something like "buy a paper and search inside" and even the FTF mentioned the cost.

[+flask]

just to throw a wrench in the gears:

 

what if the hider leaves $.75 in the cache to reimburse finders? and replenishes it regularly?

[+uxorious]

what if the hider leaves $.75 in the cache to reimburse finders? and replenishes it regularly?

 

Even if you could get to it every day you would need to leave a couple dollars worth of quarters, just in case several people got it in one day. Then sure as heck some one will log "Took quarters, left bottle cap."

[+Castle Mischief]

just to throw a wrench in the gears:

 

what if the hider leaves $.75 in the cache to reimburse finders? and replenishes it regularly?

Allow me to return your wrench, unused.

 

All day long and between finds that happen on the same day? How would the CO know there was a find made before the finder logs on-line? What if the CO goes out of town?

 

Toss in the three quarters getting picked up by non-cachers that are just buying a paper and it just isn't practical.

[+sbell111]

It's commercial and should be fixed or archived. I turned down a similar cache submission last week.

 

A good forum historian can find Jeremy's post on this subject from a thread years ago. He said (and I'm quoting from memory): "Do we list caches like that? We shouldn't."

The comment I remember from Jeremy was more like "We might list a cache like that." Here's the actual post:

 

What do you think of caches hidden inside of the newspaper stands. I am specifically referring to one that you would have to purchase a paper in order to open it and retrieve the cache.

I don't like them. However I don't care much for urban geocaches anyway. Normally a cache like this would not be allowed, but permission can be given. The "no commercial cache" rule is not black or white. Assume it will not be allowed unless you were given permission to do so.

 

And no, we generally do not charge for commercial cache placements.

I also know of a cache that was placed inside of a sub that you had to pay to get into.

If it was placed with permission by the sub owner I would probably allow this one.

 

The spirit of the guideline is to keep from overcommercializing the activity. I don't want to see nascar caches with sponsors on them, k? But the occasional (gasp) commercial cache isn't going to be a big deal as long as it isn't too over the top. We're trying to reduce the overt or subversive commercialization of geocaching. No one can be dense enough to believe it would be possible to eradicate commercialism from it.

Of course, the thing about old posts is that they can only show the party line at that moment in time.

 

Things change.

[+fegan]

 

My guess (and this is only an optimistic guess) is the cache was on the outside of the box (bottom, back) and some jerk put it inside.

 

That's what we thought at first, but the hint says something like "buy a paper and search inside" and even the FTF mentioned the cost.

 

Well, knowing the hint changes it completely. If I were the reviewer, I wouldn't have allowed it.

 

Of course, that hint may not have been there during the review process...right?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

just to throw a wrench in the gears:

 

what if the hider leaves $.75 in the cache to reimburse finders? and replenishes it regularly?

Of course, this would still be a violation of the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

The point of that part of the guidelines isn't so that the cachers don't have to incur an expense, but rather to avoid a commercial establishment from benefiting from the cache placement.

[GOF and Bacall]

just to throw a wrench in the gears:

 

what if the hider leaves $.75 in the cache to reimburse finders? and replenishes it regularly?

Of course, this would still be a violation of the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

The point of that part of the guidelines isn't so that the cachers don't have to incur an expense, but rather to avoid a commercial establishment from benefiting from the cache placement.

 

So, does this effect the caches hidden in those free paper boxes? Their advertising cost structure is often based on circulation and having a cache in their box is going to add to that circulation.

[Mr.Yuck]

just to throw a wrench in the gears:

 

what if the hider leaves $.75 in the cache to reimburse finders? and replenishes it regularly?

Of course, this would still be a violation of the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

The point of that part of the guidelines isn't so that the cachers don't have to incur an expense, but rather to avoid a commercial establishment from benefiting from the cache placement.

 

So, does this effect the caches hidden in those free paper boxes? Their advertising cost structure is often based on circulation and having a cache in their box is going to add to that circulation.

 

OK, works for me. Ban 'em. Just kidding. ==>

 

Sbell was close, but I believe this is the royal decree on paid newpaper boxes. Or Newspaper racks, as some call them. But I certainly call them boxes.

Edited September 15, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Harry Dolphin]

I found one of those about four years ago. I didn't mind paying a quarter for the cache! It lasted a few months until someone complained to the reviewer about it being a commercial cache, and it was archive for that reason.

[+Prime Suspect]

So, does this effect the caches hidden in those free paper boxes? Their advertising cost structure is often based on circulation and having a cache in their box is going to add to that circulation.

Opening the box doesn't increase circulation. Only taking a paper would do that.

[GOF and Bacall]

So, does this effect the caches hidden in those free paper boxes? Their advertising cost structure is often based on circulation and having a cache in their box is going to add to that circulation.

Opening the box doesn't increase circulation. Only taking a paper would do that.

 

Taking the free paper is often the "stealth action" performed to legitimize searching the inside of the box. Either way the publication is getting a free boost in exposure via Geocaching.com listings.

[GOF and Bacall]

just to throw a wrench in the gears:

 

what if the hider leaves $.75 in the cache to reimburse finders? and replenishes it regularly?

Of course, this would still be a violation of the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

The point of that part of the guidelines isn't so that the cachers don't have to incur an expense, but rather to avoid a commercial establishment from benefiting from the cache placement.

 

So, does this effect the caches hidden in those free paper boxes? Their advertising cost structure is often based on circulation and having a cache in their box is going to add to that circulation.

 

OK, works for me. Ban 'em. Just kidding. ==>

 

Sbell was close, but I believe this is the royal decree on paid newpaper boxes. Or Newspaper racks, as some call them. But I certainly call them boxes.

 

I'm not kidding, I wouldn't miss 'em. And I know you don't call 'em boxes. You call 'em BEE Boxes.

[+fegan]

So, does this effect the caches hidden in those free paper boxes? Their advertising cost structure is often based on circulation and having a cache in their box is going to add to that circulation.

 

Really? I've never even noticed what was being advertised when I grab one of these caches.

 

Guess I'm not normal.

Edited September 15, 2009 by fegan

[+KBI]

All I can really add to this thread is to say that it reminded me of one of my all-time favorite caching memories. (Logged under my CaptRussell account.)

 

The cache was inside a non-free newspaper box, but the box would not open even with the proper coinage. The newspaper company had apparently, um, folded.

 

Check out my earlier log as well for the full story.

 

I'm not crazy about having to pay to retrieve a cache – yet I'll do it – but if it weren't for a micro hidden inside a pay paper box I would have never enjoyed that particularly memorable adventure.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Opening the box doesn't increase circulation. Only taking a paper would do that.

 

On the other fin, it does increase the circulation of air within the box.

[+genegene]

was it the cache in Conn.?

We spent like $2.00 on the cache and come to find out we were the first to list the DNF. The owner contacted us and said it was in there and to look harder next time, and then posted that it was missing.

 

Next time I'm there I'm not going to pay and log the find anyways.

[+kunarion]

But it should be allowed if the newspaper box were set to refund the money when the box is opened. Make such a cache using a very boring-sounding newspaper, "charge" $2.00 a paper, cache description must note that you need 8 quarters as "equipment" on hand. And that it gets refunded.

[+Too Tall John]

I found a nano in one of these boxes once. The darned thing wouldn't take my money, but you could clearly see the nano inside, right on the door! I finally discovered that the lock on the latch mechanism was gone, so I simply popped it open & triggered the door manually. The cache was soon in hand!

 

Later, talking to the cache owner, I described my hunt to them. They looked at me funny and said "It was supposed to be on the back of the box, just inside a vent hole! You weren't supposed to open the box!"

 

You can't always assume that the cache owner meant for you to pay-to-open. Sometimes, the best hides are spoiled by someone deciding to hide it "better."

[+sbell111]

Sbell was close, but I believe this is the royal decree on paid newpaper boxes. Or Newspaper racks, as some call them. But I certainly call them boxes.

My referenced post was newer, so we can assume that the original position was adjusted. Of course, that 'adjustment' was merely the clarification that a non-conforming cache might be approved with prior approval from TPTB. This newer position is in line with the guidelines. Edited September 16, 2009 by sbell111

[knowschad]

All I can really add to this thread is to say that it reminded me of one of my all-time favorite caching memories. (Logged under my CaptRussell account.)

 

The cache was inside a non-free newspaper box, but the box would not open even with the proper coinage. The newspaper company had apparently, um, folded.

 

Check out my earlier log as well for the full story.

 

I'm not crazy about having to pay to retrieve a cache – yet I'll do it – but if it weren't for a micro hidden inside a pay paper box I would have never enjoyed that particularly memorable adventure.

 

 

I'd sure love to hear the rest of the story (the Criss Angel part)!

[knowschad]

I found a nano in one of these boxes once. The darned thing wouldn't take my money, but you could clearly see the nano inside, right on the door! I finally discovered that the lock on the latch mechanism was gone, so I simply popped it open & triggered the door manually. The cache was soon in hand!

 

Later, talking to the cache owner, I described my hunt to them. They looked at me funny and said "It was supposed to be on the back of the box, just inside a vent hole! You weren't supposed to open the box!"

 

You can't always assume that the cache owner meant for you to pay-to-open. Sometimes, the best hides are spoiled by someone deciding to hide it "better."

 

That has been my thinking about the cache that started this thread. Just because its inside now, doesn't mean that it is supposed to be inside. An email to the cache owner should straighten that out.

[+Arrow42]

That has been my thinking about the cache that started this thread. Just because its inside now, doesn't mean that it is supposed to be inside. An email to the cache owner should straighten that out.

 

 

That's what we thought at first, but the hint says something like "buy a paper and search inside" and even the FTF mentioned the cost.

[+Team Cotati]

You know, why didn't you just wait for the reviewer to email you the answer, and then you'd be done?

 

Hmm... well, I would have thought that 2 weeks would be long enough to await a response

 

My guess (and this is only an optimistic guess) is the cache was on the outside of the box (bottom, back) and some jerk put it inside.

 

That's what we thought at first, but the hint says something like "buy a paper and search inside" and even the FTF mentioned the cost.

 

Hint? What hint?

[+BlueDeuce]

Sbell was close, but I believe this is the royal decree on paid newpaper boxes. Or Newspaper racks, as some call them. But I certainly call them boxes.

My referenced post was newer, so we can assume that the original position was adjusted. Of course, that 'adjustment' was merely the clarification that a non-conforming cache might be approved with prior approval from TPTB. This newer position is in line with the guidelines.

 

This newer position is in line with the guidelines.

 

I see your point, but was/is there a cache approved as being inside a box?

 

My first thought is like what Too Tall John said, someone else besides the owner stuck it in there, or it was done post approval. I'm going to have to see a bit more detail first.

[AZcachemeister]

The first urban micro in Arizona was just such a cache.

The cache contained coinage to re-imburse the finder for their expense.

An unresolved DNF for me...

 

In the final analysis, I'd put one like this in the same category with hides on neighborhood mailboxes.

[+edscott]

just to throw a wrench in the gears:

 

what if the hider leaves $.75 in the cache to reimburse finders? and replenishes it regularly?

 

It's still against the guidelines.

[+hydnsek]

My favorite newspaper box hide (free, but you still had to figure out how to open it). Was sorry to see it archived. That copy of "Today's Cacher" in the box window is surely a collector's item. Edited September 19, 2009 by hydnsek

[+BareFeat]

Of course if you were one of the people that knew all you had to do was JERK really hard on any newspaper box and it will open.... you wouldn't have to pay for the cache at all.

 

Not that I would do something like that... but i've seen it done. Some of the newer ones won't work this way.

 

LOL

[+hukilaulau]

Ban 'em! Write to the reviewers! Start forum topics! Jump up and down outside Jeremy's house!

The big problem is these illegal newspaper box caches are taking up space in the woods where a regular sized ammo can could be placed! Oh, wait... they don't do that. (Yawn) nevermind...

[+reveille44]

how about you just log it as a find if you wanna pay 75 cents, and if not move on... live and let live. oh and btw... why couldnt the owner just select the access/parking fee attribute for this cache?