Is a container necessary for every phyiscal cache?

[cezanne]

I would like to know whether every physical cache needs to have a container (with respect to the guidelines of gc.com, not with respect to one's personal attitude towards geocaching).

 

In the general part of the guidelines which applies to all caches the following is stated

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

The paragraph on traditional caches contains, however, the following statement

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

 

The paragraphs on multi caches and mystery caches do not contain comparable statements while the paragraph on letterbox hybrids at least mentions a box implicitly.

 

So to give an example: Is a cache where the log needs to be written on a wall (no defacing issue involved), and where there is no container, a cache that conforms to the guidelines of gc.com?

 

What about an old car where the logs need to be carved into the outside part of the car?

 

What about a geocaching logbook added to the box which is typically available at summit crosses on mountains in the Alps? (Here some sort of container is available, but not being brought there by the hider of the cache.)

 

Cezanne

Edited October 8, 2009 by cezanne

[+Minimike2]

There are 'caches' that consist of a magnetic sign on a utility box with a plastig baggie behind it, holding a log. I suppose the baggie could be considered a 'container.'

[+simpjkee]

There are 'caches' that consist of a magnetic sign on a utility box with a plastig baggie behind it, holding a log. I suppose the baggie could be considered a 'container.'

 

To take it a step further, I've seen some where the back of the magnetic sign has a piece of paper taped to it. That's cool with the rules as far as I know. The "container" would be the magnet housing the paper between the magnet and the utility box. No baggie needed.

[Clan Riffster]

I've seen some caches that were literally naught but a stick, laying on the ground. The cache page advised the seeker to bring a Sharpie marker. Kinda adds a whole new meaning to the term "log". I don't think these would pass muster today, under the current guidelines, but since I'm not a reviewer, all I can offer is speculation.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Found a rather funny "logbook" on a cache trip recently, the container and log were one and the same since it was actually a log sawn in half and made the logbook/container. The log was sanded and varnished on the inside, a small compartment was hollowed out to house markers you used to sign your name! Cool, but a bit of work to replace the "book" lol

[Pajaholic]

There's another example of the logbook being the container here on the "interesting cache containers" thread.

[+Castle Mischief]

Didn't TBTB clarify this guideline a little while ago? There's a thread around here somewhere...

[knowschad]

It is my understanding that they do need a container. Signing the back of a magnetic strip or signing a nylon zip tie, etc. is no longer allowed around here, in any case. Of course, the reviewer may very well not be aware of details like that at the time of publication.

[+9Key]

I have a baseball themed puzzle cache that has a baseball as the container. There's actually a bison tube in the ball but cachers have been "autographing" the ball, which I thought was kinda cool.

[+ZSandmann]

As long as the cache is an item placed at GZ and not an item that was already there I think it is passable as a 'cache'. At least at the definable level, a 'cache' being a hidden item or store of hidden items. I know this was clarified a bit ago, but I've seen ziptie cache just recently that were less than a month old so they are still be posted. Now as the previous poster said, the reviewer may not be aware of the nature of the cache, but I think they add a bit of variety and they are defacing anything so I have no problem with these 'think outside the box' containers/logs/whatevers.

[+sbell111]

Didn't TBTB clarify this guideline a little while ago? There's a thread around here somewhere...

If I recall that thread correctly, I was more confused after reading it than before.

[cezanne]

As long as the cache is an item placed at GZ and not an item that was already there I think it is passable as a 'cache'.

 

The examples with the the car and with the wall do not belong to this group, however.

In the case of the car, the car could be interpreted also as the container, but in the case of the wall this will not work out.

 

I know this was clarified a bit ago,

 

Do you by chance have a link? I do not follow this subforum on a regular basis and my attempt to do find something failed (I found it hard to find proper search terms).

 

but I think they add a bit of variety and they are defacing anything so I have no problem with these 'think outside the box' containers/logs/whatevers.

 

That's true - I am just wondering whether the statement "consists of a container and a logbook at the bare minimum" in the definition of a traditional cache then still makes sense.

 

I am, however, wondering whether if even the wall type caches are conforming to the guidelines, whether this will not produce too many cases of caches which most cachers rather would not like to see as caches (such as e.g. boxes at summit crosses on mountains).

 

Cezanne

 

Cezanne

[+sbell111]

I know this was clarified a bit ago,

Do you by chance have a link? I do not follow this subforum on a regular basis and my attempt to do find something failed (I found it hard to find proper search terms).

The thread that I was thinking of was this stinker.

 

The only real clarification in that thread was this post by Lep:

A container is something that "contains" the log. As in, "encloses." Every physical cache needs a container.

 

A magnet that you write on that gets changed when it is full is not a container. A magnetic sheet that covers write-in-the-rain paper is a container.

[cezanne]

The only real clarification in that thread was this post by Lep:

A container is something that "contains" the log. As in, "encloses." Every physical cache needs a container.

 

A magnet that you write on that gets changed when it is full is not a container. A magnetic sheet that covers write-in-the-rain paper is a container.

 

Thanks for the link. I rather was looking for a clarification by a reviewer or even better by a Groundspeak official. What is cited above comes close to my own idea of a container is, but I would like to know whether there exists a general agreement (on the side of Groundspeak) on what is required for a cache.

 

It appears, however, that this once again an issue where every reviewer can decide in whichever way he likes to.

 

 

Cezanne

[PastorJon]

I'd like to have a cache titled: TNLNSL

 

The cache?

 

A large log, in the middle of the woods, with the bark peeled off, and a sharpie tied to it somehow.

[+sbell111]

The only real clarification in that thread was this post by Lep:

A container is something that "contains" the log. As in, "encloses." Every physical cache needs a container.

 

A magnet that you write on that gets changed when it is full is not a container. A magnetic sheet that covers write-in-the-rain paper is a container.

 

Thanks for the link. I rather was looking for a clarification by a reviewer or even better by a Groundspeak official. What is cited above comes close to my own idea of a container is, but I would like to know whether there exists a general agreement (on the side of Groundspeak) on what is required for a cache.

 

It appears, however, that this once again an issue where every reviewer can decide in whichever way he likes to.

 

 

Cezanne

I'm sorry. I didn't know that you wanted a reviewer's comment. My fault for quoting Lep, instead.

[cezanne]

I'm sorry. I didn't know that you wanted a reviewer's comment. My fault for quoting Lep, instead.

 

No reason for being sorry. I do not object against answers, comments or statements by non-reviewer. It's still interesting to see how others define the term container.

 

To clarify my previous posting, what I really would like to see is a clarification from the side of Groundspeak, or at least the opinion of different reviewers, not just a single one. Actually, I know that there are reviewers who do not care at all whether a container exists if they like the idea of the cache, but I do not know how the majority of the reviewers think about the issue. It is hard for me to imagine a graffiti-wall to match with the notion I have in mind of a container.

 

Some previous poster in this thread claimed that there had been some clarification on the issue. That statement was making me believe that there would exist a comment from someone from Groundspeak related to the topic.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 8, 2009 by cezanne

[+Moose Mob]

If you are looking for complete set of hard rules, I fear you are in the wrong place.

 

We work with guidelines for the reason of allowing exceptions when warranted. Some are enforced more readily than others (i.e. NPS lands) while others allow more frequent exceptions.

 

That said... containers are supposed to be viable containers. Not cheap baggies or such, but something that is expected to last 3 months (this may surprise some folks, but it has been the case for quite some time).

 

Magnetic sheets with write-in-the-rain paper stuck to it was deemed to not be a container as it does not fully enclose the log book. I have seen this exception granted many times based on what the magnetic sheet it is attached to.

 

Perhaps knowing what the specific issue is, I could give a more specific answer.

 

Moose Mob

A.K.A. RoadRunner - Reviewer for Arizona/Nevada

[cezanne]

If you are looking for complete set of hard rules, I fear you are in the wrong place.

 

First of all, thank you very much for taking the effort and replying.

 

No, I am not looking for a complete set of hard rules and agree with you that a certain degree of flexibility makes sense. It is certainly neither possible nor meaningful to cast something like geocaching into a rigid law-like system. What I do not like that much is, however, if I get the feeling that the key factor in a reviewer decision is the personal caching preference of the involved reviewer.

 

The fact that the definition of the tradititional cache type refers to the necessity of a container while this is not mentioned as a general requirement for all physical caches and is also not part of the definition of a multi cache, makes me feel, however, that the guidelines are the result of a quite unsystematic implementation of changes over time without having in mind the guidelines as a whole.

If caches without container may be granted exceptions, it might be better to change the definition of a traditional cache (e.g. stating that a traditional caches should in general consist of a logbook and a container at minimum).

 

 

Magnetic sheets with write-in-the-rain paper stuck to it was deemed to not be a container as it does not fully enclose the log book. I have seen this exception granted many times based on what the magnetic sheet it is attached to.

 

That's interesting to read that this has been considered as an exception. This type of cache fits sufficiently well into my vague idea about a container and I have thought that such caches go through without being granted an exception.

 

 

Perhaps knowing what the specific issue is, I could give a more specific answer.

 

Actually, there is no single specific issue. I am just trying to understand whether or not a container is a prerequisite (reading the guidelines carefully I realized to my surprise that the guidelines nowhere state that a multi cache needs to have a container).

 

I can provide you with a concrete example of a cache (a traditional) where I feel that no container exists at all (it is, however, just one example out of several). At the cache location is a large wall where the authorities allow people to go there and use the wall for creating graffitis (so there is no defacement issue involved). The "logbook" of the cache is a small part of the wall (higher up and not easily reachable by muggles) which has been decorated in a special way by the hiders of the cache. While I think that the idea is creative and I have no problem with the cache as it is, I feel that there is no container and that the definition of a traditional does not apply in that case.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 8, 2009 by cezanne

[+Castle Mischief]

Why would you be worried about what all the reviewers think? Wouldn't you be more concerned with that your reviewer thinks?

 

Or have they already shot down your idea and you're trying to find something to support your case?

 

Seriously, what's the whole story here?

[cezanne]

Why would you be worried about what all the reviewers think? Wouldn't you be more concerned with that your reviewer thinks?

 

Or have they already shot down your idea and you're trying to find something to support your case?

 

The answer is simple, but I guess you might have troubles to understand it. Many cachers here seem to be concerned just about getting through their own cache ideas. I have neither ever submitted a physical cache where the existence of a container might be an issue nor have I ever got denied any cache. Moreover, all my past and future caches are quite normal caches where the existence of a container is not questionable at all. (So it is also no issue of the complaint type that someone else got a certain cache published while mine got denied.)

 

My intention is to understand the spirit of a certain part of the guidelines, that's it. (BTW: As a side remark, I do know that the two regional reviewers do not care about the existence of a container in the normal sense at all if they like the underlying cache idea - so I do not need to ask for their opinion as it is already known to me. I am putting this comment into parentheses as it plays no role for my question here.)

 

 

Cezanne

[Motorcycle_Mama]

The spirit and letter of the current Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines is that all physical caches need to have an actual container and an actual log.

[+tozainamboku]

The only real clarification in that thread was this post by Lep:

A container is something that "contains" the log. As in, "encloses." Every physical cache needs a container.

 

A magnet that you write on that gets changed when it is full is not a container. A magnetic sheet that covers write-in-the-rain paper is a container.

 

Thanks for the link. I rather was looking for a clarification by a reviewer or even better by a Groundspeak official. What is cited above comes close to my own idea of a container is, but I would like to know whether there exists a general agreement (on the side of Groundspeak) on what is required for a cache.

 

It appears, however, that this once again an issue where every reviewer can decide in whichever way he likes to.

 

 

Cezanne

I'm sorry. I didn't know that you wanted a reviewer's comment. My fault for quoting Lep, instead.

I almost responded earlier that Lep choose to make the comment using his player account instead of his reviewer account but I didn't really know if that meant anything.

 

I think is is unfortunate that us average cachers don't get to hear the discussions that go on in the reviewers forums especially between the reviewers and Groundspeak. We sort of have to guess the rationale behind the guidelines and what the interpretation might be. Moose Mob provide a bit of a hint in his response indicating that container is meant to be something than can meet the cache permanence guideline. If the log is not fully enclosed, there may be an exception given if the situation is that the cache and log could last for 3 months.

 

I always felt the rationale had more to do with virtuals no longer being allowed. The idea is that a cache is an object that is placed there by the hider and can be identified as the cache. Contains a physical log mean that a physical log that a cacher can sign must be part of the cache contents. This was because code word caches are no longer allowed. My personal interpretation has always been that if I can identify the cache and identify the log it would meet the requirements. There seems to be a bit more that TPTB intend however and it would be nice for a Groundspeak lackey to provide the rationale so we can understand this. I'm seeing now that perhaps the cache permanence guideline comes into play. This seems to have to do with both protecting the log and with the ability to do maintenance on the log without having to replace the entire cache (i.e. the log cannot be part of the container). However, it seems that if you can convince a reviewer that the cache and log can survive three months without need of maintenance you might be able to get an exception.

[Dangerjackson]

As for the magnetic strip. You can use gorilla glue to attach an id case to the back, and then insert the plastic bag with the log inside of it. I created one, but have yet ot match the paint where I want to put it. So it's a container of some sort.

[Keystone]

The only real clarification in that thread was this post by Lep:

A container is something that "contains" the log. As in, "encloses." Every physical cache needs a container.

 

A magnet that you write on that gets changed when it is full is not a container. A magnetic sheet that covers write-in-the-rain paper is a container.

 

Thanks for the link. I rather was looking for a clarification by a reviewer or even better by a Groundspeak official. What is cited above comes close to my own idea of a container is, but I would like to know whether there exists a general agreement (on the side of Groundspeak) on what is required for a cache.

 

It appears, however, that this once again an issue where every reviewer can decide in whichever way he likes to.

 

 

Cezanne

I'm sorry. I didn't know that you wanted a reviewer's comment. My fault for quoting Lep, instead.

Yes, that was poor form. That poster does nothing except to define the boundary between "hamster fetish" and "mental illness." I don't listen to a thing he says.

[+The Leprechauns]

Oh yeah? Contain THIS:

 

[+Ambrosia]

*pats Lep on the head, soothingly*

 

Everything's going to be alriiiiiight, Lep....

[+beejay&esskay]

I've come across a cache description which seems to be a car (among several other junked cars?) and the "log" is to sign the car with a permanent marker.

 

Seems a little funny, but I want that smiley.

[cezanne]

Yes, that was poor form. That poster does nothing except to define the boundary between "hamster fetish" and "mental illness." I don't listen to a thing he says.

 

Do you really think that this response is a good example for how cachers are asked to treat each other in this forum? You can well choose my ignore my questions. That's ok.

 

BTW: I did not define anything here (that's not my job in this regard). I asked some questions that I did not simply ask for the sake of posting in this forum. I asked it because myself and several other cachers I know of would like to know what counts as container. The example of the graffiti wall is a real example and the opinions on whether this is a cache are extremely diverse. There are other similar examples as well.

 

I feel that it is quite hard to explain new cachers (in particular young guys) to which parts of the guidelines they really have to stick and which are not worth the paper on which they are written because apparently they are not meant in the way they are written. Can you imagine that this situation is not very comfortable? Please take into consideration that many of the cachers in my country also suffer from the language barrier - they have to try to understand the guidelines in a language which is not their own.

 

Have a look and count how many of the posters in this forum come from the US or Canada and how many from other regions of the world. I am sorry that I did not know that Lep is also a reviewer. There is no way I could know that since I do not know the US caching community.

 

It would be nice if there existed somewhere a place where questions on the guidelines could be asked. If a new place is created for that, it would be fine as well.

 

Cezanne

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I believe that Keystone was indicating that he ignores everything thing that The Leps posts. Which he has every right to do.

 

I'm not sure I understand the rest of the angst in your post.

 

You asked your question and you got several knowledgeable and and correct answers including several from reviewers. Not sure what more can be answered.

[cezanne]

I believe that Keystone was indicating that he ignores everything thing that The Leps posts. Which he has every right to do.

 

I was quite sure that he meant me and not The Leps. In case I was wrong and misunderstood something (I am not an insider here), everything I wrote in my last post can be ignored and I offer my apologies in that case for having overreacted.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 9, 2009 by cezanne

[+sbell111]

I believe that Keystone was indicating that he ignores everything thing that The Leps posts. Which he has every right to do.

 

I was quite sure that he meant me and not The Leps. In case I was wrong and misunderstood something (I am not an insider here), everything I wrote in my last post can be ignored and I offer my apologies in that case for having overreacted.

 

Cezanne

His reference to hamsters made it clear to me that he was referring to Lep.

[+Curioddity]

His reference to hamsters made it clear to me that he was referring to Lep.

It smacked of a slap to me. Perhaps it would help if you long-timers and those of you with access to the behind the scenes forums would remember that the in humor doesn't always translate very well for those of us who aren't in.

 

Pete

[Keystone]

Forum posting, like geocaching, is supposed to be fun.

 

Let's see... get sucked into the angst festival that the OP is looking to have, or respond to sbell111 by playing a joke on myself?

 

Easy choice. Though if the relationship between my two accounts had not been disclosed by a helpful prior poster, I would not likely have done that.

[+Bergie Bunch]

Ok, Lep, it;s all fun and games until someone eats a hamster. Levity solves nothing....lol YES IT DOES!! BTW...head first or rear first which is the proper hamster eating etiquette? And to stay on topic, once you swallow the hamster, do YOU then become the container? And if so, where do we sign? Would that also be a puzzle or traditional cache?

[+Castle Mischief]

Forum posting, like geocaching, is supposed to be fun.

 

Let's see... get sucked into the angst festival that the OP is looking to have, or respond to sbell111 by playing a joke on myself?

 

Easy choice. Though if the relationship between my two accounts had not been disclosed by a helpful prior poster, I would not likely have done that.

 

Geocaching is serious business.

[cezanne]

Forum posting, like geocaching, is supposed to be fun.

 

Let's see... get sucked into the angst festival that the OP is looking to have, or respond to sbell111 by playing a joke on myself?

 

Originally, I did not want to comment on this issue any further, but now I feel that I need to add a short comment.

 

(1) I am certainly guilty of not having realized that what you wrote was a joke at all (regardless of to whom it was directed). Blame me for that if you wish to do so. There was no bad intention behind from my side - I have never heard about the hamster joke before. I apologize for any inconveniences I might have caused you, including the implicit ones. I am sorry for that. Already after reflecting about the first reply that mentioned that you probably addressed your reply to another person and not to me, I got convinced that I had misunderstood something.

 

(2) My intention in this forum is neither getting sucked into angst nor having fun here (I do not mind if others have fun here - that's a personal decision as in the case of geocaching). There might be a motivation for experienced US-cachers who know each other and use this forum on a regular basis to write here for the sake of fun, but that's certainly not the case for me. I simply wanted to understand what is meant with a certain part of the guidelines and to learn how the term container is interpreted by reviewers in other parts of the world.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 9, 2009 by cezanne

[+Moose Mob]

Rule one: have fun.

Rule two: take things in stride and do not let it haunt you. Say your piece and move on.

 

What you said was a valid concern. Not high in priority, but still valid.

 

Like the 65 mph speed limit, it someone is going 66 mph, they are breaking the law, but it is doubtful they will get a traffic ticket (extenuating circumstances will apply).

[cezanne]

What you said was a valid concern. Not high in priority, but still valid.

 

Apparently different people use different priority scales. As my graffiti wall example is concerned, it is a real one and the underlying cache (a recent one) is currently discussed in another geocaching forum in quite a heated way, insults included from both sides. (I am neither taking part into that discussion nor in that forum at all. Moreover, I do not care about that cache personally - I will never visit it.) A less ambigious formulation for the definition of a traditional cache might be helpful and such discussions could be avoided to a large extent.

 

(extenuating circumstances will apply).

 

Thanks, I just learnt an English word that was new to me. So the thread was productive at least for me :-). (This is not meant ironically.)

 

Cezanne

[+Team Cotati]

Yes, a container is necessary for every physical cache.

 

I am not a reviewer. This is my personal opinion based upon my understanding of the geocaching.com site's guidelines.

[+bittsen]

His reference to hamsters made it clear to me that he was referring to Lep.

It smacked of a slap to me. Perhaps it would help if you long-timers and those of you with access to the behind the scenes forums would remember that the in humor doesn't always translate very well for those of us who aren't in.

 

Pete

 

Zactly!

[PastorJon]

Forum posting, like geocaching, is supposed to be fun.

 

Let's see... get sucked into the angst festival that the OP is looking to have, or respond to sbell111 by playing a joke on myself?

 

Originally, I did not want to comment on this issue any further, but now I feel that I need to add a short comment.

 

(1) I am certainly guilty of not having realized that what you wrote was a joke at all (regardless of to whom it was directed). Blame me for that if you wish to do so. There was no bad intention behind from my side - I have never heard about the hamster joke before. I apologize for any inconveniences I might have caused you, including the implicit ones. I am sorry for that. Already after reflecting about the first reply that mentioned that you probably addressed your reply to another person and not to me, I got convinced that I had misunderstood something.

 

(2) My intention in this forum is neither getting sucked into angst nor having fun here (I do not mind if others have fun here - that's a personal decision as in the case of geocaching). There might be a motivation for experienced US-cachers who know each other and use this forum on a regular basis to write here for the sake of fun, but that's certainly not the case for me. I simply wanted to understand what is meant with a certain part of the guidelines and to learn how the term container is interpreted by reviewers in other parts of the world.

 

Cezanne

 

Just so you don't feel alone on this issue... it's not just non-US-cachers who land on the outside of the humor. I had a similar sort of experience the other day, where a joke was made in response to my post... and I didn't understand it as a joke, but as a dismissal of my concern/suggestion.

 

At the same time, I know that I've probably been guilty of saying something that someone else didn't understand as I intended.

 

It's helpful for us all to remember that not everyone has the same language/humor/culture etc.

 

(And I think it would helpful for site staff to remember that their words DO carry extra weight, even if they're not posting "as a moderator.")

[+sbell111]

His reference to hamsters made it clear to me that he was referring to Lep.

It smacked of a slap to me. Perhaps it would help if you long-timers and those of you with access to the behind the scenes forums would remember that the in humor doesn't always translate very well for those of us who aren't in.

 

Pete

Zactly!

1. Cezanne is one of the 'old-timers'. Keystone had no reason to believe that he wouldn't get the two bits of humor in that post.
   
2. Keystone posted a response to my post. I would think that it would be clear that the poster to which he was referring was the same poster to which I referred, Lep.
   
3. What was the point of this thread, again?
   

[+Castle Mischief]

What was the point of this thread, again?

 

Something about caches that don't belong to the OP and a rule that may or may not exist but that isn't being enforced in the OP's area and the clarification of that rule for...

 

...justice?

[Clan Riffster]

BTW...head first or rear first which is the proper hamster eating etiquette?

If your hamsters have expired, it really doesn't matter. Kabob them. Puree them. BBQ them. Whatever.

The topic of etiquette only really applies to live hamster eating.

The best way is head first, straight down the gullet, no chewing.

Forcing them down your throat backwards can dislocate their little shoulders.

This makes it hard for them to swim once they kerplunk into your stomach acid.

[cezanne]

[*]Cezanne is one of the 'old-timers'. Keystone had no reason to believe that he wouldn't get the two bits of humor in that post.

 

The first sentence is true only with some restrictions. I am only visiting this subforum when I have specific questions or requests either addressed to Groundspeak or to an international audience. I do not follow the big majority of the postings in this part of the forum and assuming that I would be familiar with some hamster joke was maybe a bit over-optimistic. But as I wrote before, let's forget about this issue. If it makes people happy, they can take me as a scape goat. I do not mind.

 

[*]Keystone posted a response to my post. I would think that it would be clear that the poster to which he was referring was the same poster to which I referred, Lep.

 

He quoted the whole history. not just your posting. The way I understood the posting originally was that he wanted to tell you (therefore citing your posting as well) that you should not get involved into discussions with me and just ignore my postings like he is doing. I agree that this way of understanding Keystone's answer is not the most obvious one if one is familiar with the Hamster joke.

 

[*]What was the point of this thread, again?

 

Interestingly, still no one in this thread answered whether a graffiti wall is considered as a container at gc.com. It appears to me that the answer of Lep you cited implies that no, but I do not trust any longer in my way of interpreting what is written here.

 

Also noone commented on why the necessity of a container is mentioned in the definition of a traditional cache, but not in the definitions for multi caches and mysterys, respectively. Of course, this is only a minor issue, but still I am wondering about whether it would not make sense to unify the formulations. (It does not add any additional complexity to the guidelines and does not take away any flexibility that has been present before. It just would make things clearer and avoid many unnecessary discussions throughout the world.)

 

Cezanne

Edited October 9, 2009 by cezanne

[+Moose Mob]

<snip>

Interestingly, still no one in this thread answered whether a graffiti wall is considered as a container at gc.com. It appears to me that the answer of Lep you cited implies that no, but I do not trust any longer in my way of interpreting what is written here.

 

<snip>

I believe the answer was given indirectly.

 

This cache has no container. This cache has been given an exception to this guideline, or it was grandfathered in. Either way, it looks like a fun cache that should be enjoyed, but not copied.

[+jhauser42]

NM. Did not actually answer the question

Edited October 9, 2009 by jhauser42

[Clan Riffster]

Interestingly, still no one in this thread answered whether a graffiti wall is considered as a container

While I'm not a GC .com insider, I did stay at a Holiday Inn once...

Can you share the GC # of the wall cache in question? If you did so earlier, I missed it.

I would not consider a wall to be a cache. I've always considered the word "cache" from a more literal viewpoint, specifically, a place where things are hidden from ordinary view. (think "cache of weapons") Hence, in my biased thinking, a cache must include, at the minimum, a viable container to protect its contents, whether those contents are naught but a scrap of paper covered with the initials of geonerds, or gold bullion. While a wall might become part of a container, (add 3 more walls & a roof and you've got a container), it would not qualify as a whole. (Again, let me stress that this is just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it)

 

From my observations, Groundspeak might have a different view of what constitutes a cache.

When I peruse my profile, under the heading of "List of Geocaches found (All Cache Finds), I see 4 incidents where, instead of finding a container, I found interesting locations, to include an airplane, a monument and two theme parks. There are 42 incidents where all I found was a horde of like minded kooks looking to schmooze. There was one incident where I got my picture taken, 12 incidents where I went out and picked up garbage, 1 incident where I stood near a unique geographic location and 2 incidents where I located a metal disk stuck in concrete. Groundspeak calls all of these "caches", so maybe the wall you are talking about would qualify?

Edited October 9, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+Castle Mischief]

...and 2 incidents where I located a metal disk stuck in concrete. Groundspeak calls all of these "caches", so maybe the wall you are talking about would qualify?

 

Somebody could say that since those two metal disks don't add to your total find number that Groundspeak is not calling them caches.

 

 

(But not me.)