Bushes/Hedges/Evergreens etc.

[+Nervous Nick]

I think there should be a separate category for caches hidden in hedges/evergreens/dense bushes etc.

 

Because I would filter out any cache like that.

 

I generally give them a two-minute lookaround before giving up on them. But it would be very cool if I could filter them out and not have to waste my time on them.

 

Common sense would indicate that hiding geocaches in such places is just inviting people to completely disrupt or kill these plants.

 

Experience has confirmed this for me. I cannot count the times I have come to a GZ and seen a bush or shrub or tree or some sort of topiary that has obviously been raped by geocachers eager to get a smiley. But I suppose I am preaching to the choir here. At least I hope I am.

 

I just wonder about some of the reviewers who approve these hides.

[+bittsen]

I think there should be a separate category for caches hidden in hedges/evergreens/dense bushes etc.

 

Because I would filter out any cache like that.

 

I generally give them a two-minute lookaround before giving up on them. But it would be very cool if I could filter them out and not have to waste my time on them.

 

Common sense would indicate that hiding geocaches in such places is just inviting people to completely disrupt or kill these plants.

Experience has confirmed this for me. I cannot count the times I have come to a GZ and seen a bush or shrub or tree or some sort of topiary that has obviously been raped by geocachers eager to get a smiley. But I suppose I am preaching to the choir here. At least I hope I am.

 

I just wonder about some of the reviewers who approve these hides.

 

And I bet they all have been placed with expressed permission.

 

I'll sign the petetion!

[+StarBrand]

....

I just wonder about some of the reviewers who approve these hides.

For starters there is no guideline that would allow a reviewer to deny the cache.

 

Second - there is generally no way in the world for the reviewer to know it was hidden that way.

 

Finally - sorry to here about your experiences with such caches. That is not my experience. I've seen maybe 3 or 4 trees/bushes I could describe as damaged in any way by cachers. Out of at least 150 or more finds in such places.

 

BTW - I generally dislike such placements as well.

[+Nervous Nick]

....

I just wonder about some of the reviewers who approve these hides.

For starters there is no guideline that would allow a reviewer to deny the cache.

 

Second - there is generally no way in the world for the reviewer to know it was hidden that way.

 

Finally - sorry to here about your experiences with such caches. That is not my experience. I've seen maybe 3 or 4 trees/bushes I could describe as damaged in any way by cachers. Out of at least 150 or more finds in such places.

 

BTW - I generally dislike such placements as well.

 

Yes, I realize there is no way for reviewers to know the nature of the hide. That was kind of a kneejerk reaction on my part, and I apologize to the reviewers. But I still think a guideline might help--at least a "helpful hint for polite hiding" or something.

 

And I guess location matters, because my experience in Chicagoland has been more like over 50% damaged sites to your 3% or so. And I'm not talking about "cacher trails" here, but plainly visible damage to foliage from people diving into bushes.

 

I suppose the best thing would be to encourage people to log these finds as DNFs with notes to reviewers about the conditions.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Nervous Nick

[+narcissa]

I've seen a few cedar hedges where the cache placement was obvious due to a large hole where everyone had stuck their arms in to grab the cache. It happens, and it's something that cachers learn to avoid once they have some experience.

 

Everyone has their likes and dislikes, and it would be impossible to have searchable categories for every type of hide out there. Sometimes playing this game means you end up looking for caches that aren't that great (in your opinion). Oh well.

[+gorillagal]

Try caching in a place where 90% of the trees are evergreens. I can't say I enjoy looking for bison tubes in a pine/juniper/spruce, but I've gotten used to it. By the way, I don't think I've ever seen one damaged by searchers. However, plenty of the trees have damaged me!

[+KoosKoos]

I've seen a few cedar hedges where the cache placement was obvious due to a large hole where everyone had stuck their arms in to grab the cache. It happens, and it's something that cachers learn to avoid once they have some experience.

 

Everyone has their likes and dislikes, and it would be impossible to have searchable categories for every type of hide out there. Sometimes playing this game means you end up looking for caches that aren't that great (in your opinion). Oh well.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, but how do you know the hider didn't place the cache in that hole because they saw it in the hedge and figured it would be easy for cachers to access?

[+narcissa]

I've seen a few cedar hedges where the cache placement was obvious due to a large hole where everyone had stuck their arms in to grab the cache. It happens, and it's something that cachers learn to avoid once they have some experience.

 

Everyone has their likes and dislikes, and it would be impossible to have searchable categories for every type of hide out there. Sometimes playing this game means you end up looking for caches that aren't that great (in your opinion). Oh well.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, but how do you know the hider didn't place the cache in that hole because they saw it in the hedge and figured it would be easy for cachers to access?

 

I have heard cache owners talk about moving or archiving their caches after noticing these holes.

 

On another note, I suspect that you don't understand what "devil's advocate" means.

[+succotash]

We've seen a few hidden in American hollies. Can't imagine why someone would want to do that.

 

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not a big fan of shrub hunts. I'd rather play out in the woods.

[+edscott]

The satellite images will usually tell you if it is an evergreen bingo cache, so avoiding them isn't that difficult. Yes, I've seen lots of evergreen shrubs damaged by overzealous searchers. In fact my strategy for these hides is to let them sit for a few weeks and then go look for the hole.

[+briansnat]

Common sense would indicate that hiding geocaches in such places is just inviting people to completely disrupt or kill these plants.

 

Common sense doesn't tell me that, because I've found a few dozen of them and rarely see any evidence that there is a cache in the bush/hedge/tree.

[+KoosKoos]

I have heard cache owners talk about moving or archiving their caches after noticing these holes.

 

On another note, I suspect that you don't understand what "devil's advocate" means.

 

Devil's advocate -

1. a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination.

 

I didn't say geocachers never cause damage and it's a responsible move for cache owners to archive the cache if it's causing that type of problem.

 

My point was that just because it appears something was caused by irresponsible seekers, it could have been caused by other means and the hider was just taking advantage of the situation.

 

I do believe it's up to all of us as seekers to be respectful of the area we're searching and it's up to cache owners to think about what could happen if the seekers AREN'T respectful and think about whether or not that spot is the best place for a cache.

[knowschad]

On another note, I suspect that you don't understand what "devil's advocate" means.

I'm waiting...

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I have heard cache owners talk about moving or archiving their caches after noticing these holes.

 

On another note, I suspect that you don't understand what "devil's advocate" means.

 

Let's stay on topic, please, and not get carried away with the rhetoric. Thanks.

[+narcissa]

 

My point was that just because it appears something was caused by irresponsible seekers, it could have been caused by other means and the hider was just taking advantage of the situation.

 

 

And that is a reasonable, plausible suggestion. I think we're all aware that holes in hedges can be caused by things other than cachers, particularly hedges in public parks. The space behind a nice cedar hedge makes a good hiding spot for kids, and sometimes a hedge hides a great shortcut out of a park.

 

In any case, it takes cachers a bit of time and experience to learn how their cache can impact the environment. In situations where the cache is the likely cause of damage, it is good practice to reconsider the location.

[+HH58]

Reviewers can't see how the cache is hidden. Even if they look at a satellite picture - how could they see if the green thing is a very dense bush or if its a lot of space under it ?

 

A lot of things can be damaged by searching geocachers, not only bushes - e.g. parts of buildings ... and there can be damages to plants caused by cachers approaching the cache site, even a hundred meters away from the final location.

 

Hiders and searchers should use their common sense when hiding / searching a cache.

[+Arrow42]

In any case, it takes cachers a bit of time and experience to learn how their cache can impact the environment. In situations where the cache is the likely cause of damage, it is good practice to reconsider the location.

 

Making it a puzzle cache or a PMO cache can limit the traffic in a more sensitive area.

[+dexter-cacher]

my 2 cents....

 

not everyone likes the micro in the bush, some don't like the 4 km journey to the cache deep in the woods, some don't like park and grabs and some don't like "the power trails"..... It's like a form of entertainment... like going to a movie....If you don't like disney pictures, go to an action film instead, don't like that, go to a comedy or a romance or whatever it is you do like. Just because there is a movie playing at the theatre down the road doesn't mean you got to go to "that" movie.

 

You stated ---> I cannot count the times I have come to a GZ and seen a bush or shrub or tree or some sort of topiary that has obviously been raped by geocachers eager to get a smiley.<----

 

I have seen some in trees / bushes / hedges and no damage was noted. The problem you speak of isn't cache placement, it is careless cachers. Also, it's almost the same as saying "some drivers are driving too fast and without seat belts on Hwy whatever. We need to stop that by eliminating any driving at all on Hwy whatever".

 

Bottom line...if someone doesn't like a certain cache type...move on...find another...get your smiley elsewhere... no one says you have to get it....

 

OK I gotta run...I have a craving for buttered popcorn and to go see a movie...anyone want to go..?

[+sdrawkcab]

We've seen a few hidden in American hollies. Can't imagine why someone would want to do that.

 

 

Thats just plan out right mean. Glad not a lot of that grows here in north texas.

 

As for the hidding in evergreens, in the wild there is no problem.... They are hearty trees.... in a land scape an the otherhand..... I wouldn't want every cacher in the area digging in a hedge of mine.

 

Sdrawkcab

[+sdrawkcab]

my 2 cents....

 

not everyone likes the micro in the bush, some don't like the 4 km journey to the cache deep in the woods, some don't like park and grabs and some don't like "the power trails"..... It's like a form of entertainment... like going to a movie....If you don't like disney pictures, go to an action film instead, don't like that, go to a comedy or a romance or whatever it is you do like. Just because there is a movie playing at the theatre down the road doesn't mean you got to go to "that" movie.

 

 

And the caches listed around here (DFW Texas) will mention Evergreen in the discription or the hint.

[+gravechaser]

If you park and narrow it down to a shrub/tree then walk back and move on. It's just that simple. The kids and I have done that several times.

 

On the other hand we have a cache in our windbreak row around the edge of our homestead. At first we had a lock-n-lock straddling two branches in the tree but after the first time I did maintenance on it I put it on the ground under the tree cuz I didn't like the tree needles either.

 

I've only had one person complain to me about the cache INSIDE the tree that they couldn't find because they didn't want to stick their hand in the tree (at which time the cache was the ammo box under the tree). My advice to them? Ignore our cache then. The funny side of this was/is our cache is a nice ammo box nestled on the ground within easy reach. All they had to do was kneel down and look under the tree. Two branches perfectly hide it when one is standing. We have never seen damage to the particular tree nor to the ones that flank it.

[+Team Cotati]

I think there should be a separate category for caches hidden in hedges/evergreens/dense bushes etc.

 

Because I would filter out any cache like that.

 

I generally give them a two-minute lookaround before giving up on them. But it would be very cool if I could filter them out and not have to waste my time on them.

 

Common sense would indicate that hiding geocaches in such places is just inviting people to completely disrupt or kill these plants.

 

Experience has confirmed this for me. I cannot count the times I have come to a GZ and seen a bush or shrub or tree or some sort of topiary that has obviously been raped by geocachers eager to get a smiley. But I suppose I am preaching to the choir here. At least I hope I am.

 

I just wonder about some of the reviewers who approve these hides.

 

Yeah, and add to that ivy ground cover, the worst. The best thing would be simply for folks to not hide caches there in the first place, ya THAT's gonna happen, right? LOL

 

Next would be for responsible cachers to report these type of hides and the observed damage to the landscaping to the CO and then depending upon the reaction or lack thereof, then to their local reviewer who will take timely and appropriate action with the CO. Please do this and encourage others to follow your lead.

 

This is one of the areas where the concept of "if you don't like 'em, don't search for 'em" falls short unless we take responsible follow up action.

 

No one wants this game to get a bad rep with the public and property owners/managers.

[+baloo&bd]

I think GS is remiss in not addressing this in the guidelines.

 

GS needs to add wording to the guidelines;

 

"Groundspeak, geocaching.com, it subsidiaries as well as vendors and users will not hold a cacher liable that for reasons, real or perceived, choose not to hunt caches in a given area or locale"

[+Team Cotati]

I forgot to mention:

 

You might want to consider not coming to these forms seeking permission and/or approval for what you know is the right thing to do.

 

Do not despair.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Team Cotati

[djhobby]

I personally despise bush hides. The ones around here are usually placed in the landscaping of some unsuspecting business. The cachers start damaging the landscaping and give the hobby a black eye. Plus most of the bushes have tons of trash and broken bottles hidden under them. When I see a bush hide get published I put it on my ignore list. An attribute for bush hides would be awesome but probably will never happen. Unfortunately they can't all be good hides.

[+Nervous Nick]

<quote>

 

Yeah, and add to that ivy ground cover, the worst. The best thing would be simply for folks to not hide caches there in the first place, ya THAT's gonna happen, right? LOL

 

Next would be for responsible cachers to report these type of hides and the observed damage to the landscaping to the CO and then depending upon the reaction or lack thereof, then to their local reviewer who will take timely and appropriate action with the CO. Please do this and encourage others to follow your lead.

 

This is one of the areas where the concept of "if you don't like 'em, don't search for 'em" falls short unless we take responsible follow up action.

 

No one wants this game to get a bad rep with the public and property owners/managers.

 

Amen!

 

If responsible cachers report these carelessly placed caches to the owners, and if necessary to the reviewers (with photos), I think we could make this much less of an issue than at least some or us think it is.

 

As an avid outdoorsperson as well as a geocacher, my philosophy is "always leave a place in better shape than when you arrived."

 

Or, at the very least, "Take only photos. Leave only footprints."

 

And CITO, always, btw. If you carry even one piece of litter away from a hunt, you are doing a lot more than the majority of visitors to most sites will ever think of doing.

 

We cannot and should not force cachers to be careful about how they look for caches, but I think hiders have the responsibility to NOT offer careless geocachers the opportunity to mess stuff up.

[+sbell111]

Wow. Peeve threads are really in vogue.

 

I guess that we are no longer responsible for our own fun.