Reporting a Rule-Breaker Cache

[+narcissa]

 

This is my personal opinion, but she seems to be a kind of rule nazi, has NO tolerance for anything but what she feels is violating the rules. She seems to be the KNOW IT ALL CACHE COP, even though holding no official position either.

 

I'm like you, it has to be pretty glaring to warrant a complaint. Otherwise just communicating friendly with the CO or whomever it needs to be directed is the best way.

 

Is the name calling necessary?

[AZcachemeister]

How would you know it violates the guidelines unless you found it?

 

In a some cases it might be obvious before you find the cache. For instance when your GPS is pointing to a spot 50 feet beyond no trespassing signs.

 

GPSr points 50 feet on the other side of fence.

Co-ordinates are 60 feet off.

If you didn't find the cache, you are assuming the cache is behind the fence...but you don't know for sure.

It only takes one person to verify that it is a violation, however. Of course once JOE BLOW Geocacher jumps the fence to verify the cache is over there, that makes it perfectly OK for everyone to follow suit...NOT.

[+GeoGeeBee]

How would you know it violates the guidelines unless you found it?

 

In a some cases it might be obvious before you find the cache. For instance when your GPS is pointing to a spot 50 feet beyond no trespassing signs.

 

GPSr points 50 feet on the other side of fence.

Co-ordinates are 60 feet off.

If you didn't find the cache, you are assuming the cache is behind the fence...but you don't know for sure.

It only takes one person to verify that it is a violation, however. Of course once JOE BLOW Geocacher jumps the fence to verify the cache is over there, that makes it perfectly OK for everyone to follow suit...NOT.

 

I'm not sure what your point is here. If the cache is beyond the "no trespassing" signs, it should be archived. If the coordinates are 60 feet off, they should be corrected. Either way, the owner's attention is required and a reviewer may need to become involved.

[+Wadcutter]

I'm not sure what your point is here. If the cache is beyond the "no trespassing" signs, it should be archived. If the coordinates are 60 feet off, they should be corrected. Either way, the owner's attention is required and a reviewer may need to become involved.

Sometimes being off a few feet can cause a whole lot of problems for a cacher. GC1TQ3G

Our initial log indicated there was probably a problem with the coords. The next 2 logs confirmed the coords were off. The 4th log showed just how serious things can get when the CO fails to follow up.

"Super bad coords!!! Farmer chased us off with a shot gun, looked like he was going nuts about people walking around his yard."

 

One must also never assume that just because a cache is at a certain location that approval had been given. Another cache the coords took us to the middle of a major airport next to a restricted area sign, next to the airport radar control station, power box for most of the airport, and 100 yds from an Air National Guard HQ. How it ever got approved in the first place shows that some reviewers don't pay a lot of attention some times. We posted a note about it's location hopefully as a gentle reminder to the COs that the cache was on airport property and not only violated cache placement rules but was also a security issue. We had hoped the COs would wake up and realize their cache placement was not being really smart nor in compliance with the rules. Having been the security commander at the ANG base and working closely with airport security and management for many years I knew prior approval would not have been given. Turned out airport security had received many reports of suspicious people (cachers) and had been looking for them. That could have placed a cacher in a really bad situation and ruined a good day caching had someone been caught looking in the area.

[+The Weasel]

I think part of the problem is that cachers (myself included) have downloaded an area of caches down into the GPS and headed out for the day. They get to an area and have no info on the cache for parking or anything like that, so they park in the closest area and just "head in".

 

I now carry a PDA with me at all times so I can check the description for parking coords or permission to cross areas that are posted private property.

 

I think another thing is that CO's should try and not place caches so close where people can drive closer than you want them to. There is a big difference between a 1.5 mile hike from the parking coords and a .15 just off the road on possible private property.

 

I have overheard comments at events where people have crossed into private property with the comments of "I figured I would only be there for 10 mins tops and the land owner wouldn't know". It may only take 10 mins to find the cache, but just remember it only takes a second for a angry land owner to shoot a round. With this day and age of the meth lab, we need to be following the rules as much as humanly possible!

[Clan Riffster]

Had it been a cache owner that I didn't know, I would not have gone after the cache

Sound advice for "Trespassing" caches. Experience has taught me that just because a cache appears to be in violation of the guidelines, doesn't mean it is in violation. If a cache is hidden by someone who has earned my trust and respect, and it appeared to be in violation, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and continue the hunt, discussing my observations with them later. If it was hidden by a cacher unknown to me, I would move on and send an informative note the which ever reviewer published it.

 

As for most other violations, (buried/vandalism/etc), I probably wouldn't know about the violation until I found the cache, at which point I would probably log a find, followed by a note to the reviewer.

[+BlueDeuce]

Had it been a cache owner that I didn't know, I would not have gone after the cache

Sound advice for "Trespassing" caches. Experience has taught me that just because a cache appears to be in violation of the guidelines, doesn't mean it is in violation. If a cache is hidden by someone who has earned my trust and respect, and it appeared to be in violation, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and continue the hunt, discussing my observations with them later. If it was hidden by a cacher unknown to me, I would move on and send an informative note the which ever reviewer published it.

 

As for most other violations, (buried/vandalism/etc), I probably wouldn't know about the violation until I found the cache, at which point I would probably log a find, followed by a note to the reviewer.

 

Violations of listing guidelines is one thing. Violations of federal, state or local laws is another. I'm not going to trespass based solely on the benefit of doubt.

 

I trust and respect my fellow cacher Welch but if his coords were pointing me over the state park fence stating to respect private property I'm not going over. I'll search everything up to that point and move on if necessary.

 

If it was one of those homemade No trespassing signs I'll give the land owner the benefit doubt that the sign means what it says. I'll clarify things with the trusted and respected cacher before crossing the line.

Edited January 22, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+L0ne.R]

Sound advice for "Trespassing" caches. Experience has taught me that just because a cache appears to be in violation of the guidelines, doesn't mean it is in violation.

 

Last year at a historical site, 'no trespassing' signs were put up. There had never been 'no trespassing' signs here before. There's a cache there, just down the trail from the historical structure. But to get to the structure and trail you have to walk past the no trespassing signs. I emailed the city to ask. They transferred my question to the Historical society in charge. The president of the historical society let me know that it was OK to visit the structure, the signs were put up to discourage vandalism. So yeah, sometimes a you aren't actually trespassing even though there are 'no trespassing' signs.

 

I placed a cache in a woodlot with a large parking area. Months later the city put up "No unauthorized parking" signs. I emailed the city and was told: "This area is signed to deter abandoned cars, overnight parking and to provide us with the means to control parking if required. The only occasion that I can recall enforcement taking place during the daytime was based on a complaint of people living in a camper at this site. If the signage was not present it would have been more difficult to get them relocated."

 

But, I think it behooves the cache owner to make inquiries into questionable signage and to be sure that it really is OK to enter the area and then to post that information on their cache page.

[+flask]

if i think a cache is in violation of guidelines but don't know for certain, i may go and look. i won't knowingly trespass, but sometimes i have been at a cache and then realized it was on the wrong side of the no trespassing sign.

 

if it violates other guidelines, such as a buried cache, i don't know that until i find it.

 

in either case, if i've found it i will log it. if i am on friendly terms with the CO i will bring it to his attention, but if i don't know the CO, i will bring it to the reviewer's attention, and quietly. while i have sometimes made my concern open on the cache page, it's not usually the best way to go about it.

 

but the fact remains: if i found it, i found it. if i had to go to the trouble of getting myself there and finding the blasted thing in order to know if it needs reporting, i will take that smilie for my trouble.

[+bittsen]

Guidelines?

 

Guidelines are about whether or not the cache is listed on Geocaching.com

It has NOTHING to do with the ACTUAL viability of a cache.

 

If I know a cache is somewhere, whether or not it's listed on geocaching.com, I will choose whether or not to get the cache at that time.

No trespassing signs? Fences? Muggles? Private property? It all depends.

 

Just because geocaching.com doesn't list it, or does, doesn't mean squat.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not going to trespass based solely on the benefit of doubt.

For one of my own hides, I followed this logic. I created a simple two stage multi along a lake shore in an area I patrol. On this particular stretch, the property lines don't go all the way to the water, as determined by the Property Appraiser's office. The lay out is, the water's edge, a few yards of grassy beach, then a treeline. The property lines start several yards into the treeline. The land from the property lines to the water is sovereign, and anyone can be there. Both stages of my hide were just inside the treeline. Perfectly legal.

 

Here's where it gets interesting:

 

The property owners decided they didn't like looking out their collective windows, and seeing something other than a lake. Specifically, they complained that people were "walking around" out there. While some were certainly cachers in search of my hide, most were just folks enjoying a walk, birding, fishing, etc. To combat the problem, the property owners posted a string of "No Trespassing" signs right on the treeline. I didn't want future seekers to have to decide if the signs were legitimate, nor did I want future seekers to be confronted by angry land owners with overly inflated entitlement issues.

 

I moved the cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

There's more than a few areas that I've seen that have No Trespassing signs, but are on recently purchased Green Acres and are open to the public. Some have been improved with trails, parking area, ect. but the signs stay up. Each area is a bit different. I was going to slip a micro behind one sign, but then I wondered if the "nails in trees" guideline would come into play.

 

I have run into one guy in particular who illegally rides his quad back in the nature preserve across the street from his house. If you park on the shoulder of the road on the preserve's property, he'll ride back there and ask what you're doing. He doesn't want anyone to park in front of his house on the other side of the street for some odd reason, and has put up his own No Parking signs. I contacted the preserve and they said they really could not do anything unless someone videotaped him. I figured the best thing to do was to just move the parking coords down the street.

Edited January 24, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Harry Dolphin]

There's more than a few areas that I've seen that have No Trespassing signs, but are on recently purchased Green Acres and are open to the public. Some have been improved with trails, parking area, ect. but the signs stay up. Each area is a bit different. I was going to slip a micro behind one sign, but then I wondered if the "nails in trees" guideline would come into play.

 

I have run into one guy in particular who illegally rides his quad back in the nature preserve across the street from his house. If you park on the shoulder of the road on the preserve's property, he'll ride back there and ask what you're doing. He doesn't want anyone to park in front of his house on the other side of the street for some odd reason, and has put up his own No Parking signs. I contacted the preserve and they said they really could not do anything unless someone videotaped him. I figured the best thing to do was to just move the parking coords down the street.

 

Yes. They do seem relapse at taking down the No Trespassing signs. I especially liked the one in South Jersey with the Green Acres sign nailed into the No Trespassing sign! As with others similar, the CO noted on the cache page that the area was a recent Green Acres purchase.

[Skippermark]

Yes. They do seem relapse at taking down the No Trespassing signs. I especially liked the one in South Jersey with the Green Acres sign nailed into the No Trespassing sign! As with others similar, the CO noted on the cache page that the area was a recent Green Acres purchase.

Not far from where I live a local town purchased a bunch of land that was full of hiking trails. A cacher immediately placed a series of caches there, which was great!

 

When we went to do the series, there were new no trespassing signs all over telling people to keep out. We were confused because the cache owner said the area was just purchased by the town and would remain undeveloped for hiking purposes.

 

We contacted the cache owner, and he was confused. He disabled the series to investigate further in case he was given bad info, but in the end, it turned out that a nearby landowner had put up the signs to keep people out. The signs were taken down by the town, and all was good.

[+Scrabble Dogs]

What a sad situation I have been caching for about a year now and the more I dig deep into the sport the more I see this sport going down hill in a hurry, if the cache is not up to your standards Dont look for it.

Do you really have that much extra time in life to really care that much? The sport is turning from a easygoing pastime to a organized mess such as golf! Why make it so hard to have a little fun?

[+briansnat]

What a sad situation I have been caching for about a year now and the more I dig deep into the sport the more I see this sport going down hill in a hurry, if the cache is not up to your standards Dont look for it.

Do you really have that much extra time in life to really care that much? The sport is turning from a easygoing pastime to a organized mess such as golf! Why make it so hard to have a little fun?

 

Unfortunately there are people out there who care about this sport and want to see it thrive. Caches that break laws are a threat to the acceptance of this sport by the same people who have the power to kill it.

[+Scrabble Dogs]

I want to see it survive not policed by cache tattle tales, you will see you are ruining it for yourself Its going to be virtually impossible to place a cache in the future if you keep sniveling about everything all my caches are in compliance of the not here not there rules.

Eventually people reporting or cache policing is going to no fun and discourage people from hiding or even participating in this sport.

I guess you need 20,000 caches or have 31,062 posts to count in this sport huh?

Its like to kids fighting over a toy telling on each other, eventually someone is going to take it away correct?

[4wheelin_fool]

The unpaid reviewers are cachers like everyone else. By cutting off communication to them, you are only playing the "mischievous child" role.

Edited January 26, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+bittsen]

I want to see it survive not policed by cache tattle tales, you will see you are ruining it for yourself Its going to be virtually impossible to place a cache in the future if you keep sniveling about everything all my caches are in compliance of the not here not there rules.

Eventually people reporting or cache policing is going to no fun and discourage people from hiding or even participating in this sport.

I guess you need 20,000 caches or have 31,062 posts to count in this sport huh?

Its like to kids fighting over a toy telling on each other, eventually someone is going to take it away correct?

 

So, my guess is that you like to "do your own thing" in all aspects of life.

 

Let me ask you this. Why would you condone someone breaking rules that YOU are supposed to abide by? What makes them special? What extra rights do they have? Why are they above the rules? Why can't they play by the same rules the rest of us play by?

 

No, really? Why let people slide on obvious infractions upon the guidelines? WHY?

[+Scrabble Dogs]

What does unpaid reviewer have to do with any of it? "mischievous child" funny its just sad I have been to a few events and the majority are older people as in not children and I just would think there further into there lives than being tattle tales with nothing else to do thats all I am saying, the "unpaid reviewer" published it so your telling on him as well. I do respect and know rules need to be in place but if you do not like the cache leave walk away and forget it! Why do you really, actually care? Some say "Unfortunately there are people out there who care about this sport" I guess assuming I don't, but look deep into theses forums and you can see this sport falling apart at the seams, Just take your GPS and and crab some caches and forget it!

[+Scrabble Dogs]

You just said it your self "GUIDELINES" thats it Yah I do do my own thing not live miserably by "GUIDELINES" I abide by the rules that need to be in place yes. I figure next there will be "GUIDELINES" on which side of the hill I should approach the cache from! or do you just "do your own thing" and approach from which side looks like the best hike!

[4wheelin_fool]

Children call it tattletelling, adults call it communication. Eventually they will find out one way or another (especially if they find it under their other username) If you fooled them into publishing something they shouldn't have, the ultimate responsibility is still yours. That is exactly why the title was changed from "approver" to "reviewer" a few years ago.

[+briansnat]

Why do you really, actually care?

 

I guess you weren't around when a South Carolina state representative decided that geocaching was a bad thing that needed to be regulated by the government. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed and her proposed legislation was not passed. The next time we might not be so lucky.

 

If we get a reputation as a bunch of rogues who trespass and cause trouble with our caches it won't be long before there is a next time.

 

If we don't police our own sport, eventually someone else will and I doubt we'll like what comes of that.

 

Call them tattletales, belittle them if you like, but they are doing their part to make sure the sport's image remains a positive one.

Edited January 26, 2010 by briansnat

[+bittsen]

You just said it your self "GUIDELINES" thats it Yah I do do my own thing not live miserably by "GUIDELINES" I abide by the rules that need to be in place yes. I figure next there will be "GUIDELINES" on which side of the hill I should approach the cache from! or do you just "do your own thing" and approach from which side looks like the best hike!

 

Well, here's the deal. And it's the real deal.

 

If you want to place a geocache on federally preserved lands. And you want to call it a traditional even if it's a puzzle cache, and you want to stock it with razor blades and jars of peanut butter and dedicate it to Aflac and make it a little harder by burying it and surrounding the area with barbed wire and electric fences, you are free to do so with the consequences belonging to YOU.

 

But if you want to list the cache on geocaching.com, you have to agree to the terms of service and abide by the guidelines or your cache will be removed from the listing service. And guess what? Groundspeak has agents out there checking on caches and reporting violations. They call them cachers.

 

Process that for a minute.

[+Scrabble Dogs]

AGENTS= people a little to worried by simple things in life I assume? Ok razor blades thats just funny I have never seen it and yah thats completely understandable its unsafe and unhealthy.

Peanut butter come on lets be sensible here, I have never placed food in a cache but we know if its done there is no harm in it and if the argument of it brings in animals maybe true but if food in a cache does, then animals already exist in the area prior to the cache placement and your chances of coming across them are the same!

And whats with the Aflac if that refers to caches that promote business once again so be it, truthfully whats the problem? You do not have to visit that location because there is a cache placed there and as this world grows my advice is to get use to it there are wal-marts and targets on every corner surrounded my miles and miles of homes so if caching is going to continue then there has to be a placement near a business.

And if a buried cache is that bad then I guess a rock pile over a Ammo can is considered buried and maybe we should throw it out in the open and take some coords and call it a cache.

[+bittsen]

AGENTS= people a little to worried by simple things in life I assume? Ok razor blades thats just funny I have never seen it and yah thats completely understandable its unsafe and unhealthy.

Peanut butter come on lets be sensible here, I have never placed food in a cache but we know if its done there is no harm in it and if the argument of it brings in animals maybe true but if food in a cache does, then animals already exist in the area prior to the cache placement and your chances of coming across them are the same!

And whats with the Aflac if that refers to caches that promote business once again so be it, truthfully whats the problem? You do not have to visit that location because there is a cache placed there and as this world grows my advice is to get use to it there are wal-marts and targets on every corner surrounded my miles and miles of homes so if caching is going to continue then there has to be a placement near a business.

And if a buried cache is that bad then I guess a rock pile over a Ammo can is considered buried and maybe we should throw it out in the open and take some coords and call it a cache.

 

So you do think you are above the guidelines that everyone else abides by?

 

Try to make people feel bad about reporting your caches (if they violate the guidelines). See how far you get with that argument.

[+Scrabble Dogs]

Ok sorry for making everyone mad I am done here, I will go about caching like I have been and just hope everything stays as it is, some happy the way it is and some want to better it( I guess i needed to vent)

[+Scrabble Dogs]

Not above at all all mine abide fine by the rules, I just dont care what other people do in the end like you said earlier its on them(not mine nor your responsibility)

[+bittsen]

Not above at all all mine abide fine by the rules, I just dont care what other people do in the end like you said earlier its on them(not mine nor your responsibility)

 

Wait till you run into a blatant violation of the guidelines. Not that you don't have enough caches under your belt or anything. Just wait till a guideline violating cache gets all the caches removed from a particular area that you wanted to cache in.

 

Not all "rules" make sense but they are there for a reason.

[+Scrabble Dogs]

You know what you are more than likely correct!

[+bflentje]

What a sad situation I have been caching for about a year now and the more I dig deep into the sport the more I see this sport going down hill in a hurry, if the cache is not up to your standards Dont look for it.

Do you really have that much extra time in life to really care that much? The sport is turning from a easygoing pastime to a organized mess such as golf! Why make it so hard to have a little fun?

 

With all due respect, that is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard here in these forums.. excluding the funny one about not walking on the grass.

[+Scrabble Dogs]

Sad but true!

[+suchanana]

if the cache is not up to your standards Dont look for it.

 

that's the part i agree with...each cacher can decide on her/his own what makes up those standards as they apply when you are out caching...

 

bravo to scrabble dogs for having that gumption and still having fun in this great sport !!!!

 

and kudos to all us old folks who want the best foot forward for this sport to continue...

[+BlueDeuce]

if the cache is not up to your standards Dont look for it.

 

that's the part i agree with...each cacher can decide on her/his own what makes up those standards as they apply when you are out caching...

 

bravo to scrabble dogs for having that gumption and still having fun in this great sport !!!!

 

and kudos to all us old folks who want the best foot forward for this sport to continue...

 

Improperly listed, if not illegally placed caches, helps this sport continue?

 

'splain that one to me old folks.

[Clan Riffster]

If the cache is not up to your standards Dont look for it.

That would seem rather difficult to take from conception to application.

 

For instance:

 

A cache that resides in a 2'x2' hole, in an old growth oak tree, that the cache hider created with a chain saw, without permission from the property manager would certainly not be up to my standards, yet history has shown us that the types of folks willing to create such an asinine hide are, for some reason, unwilling to post on their cache pages that they wreaked havoc in creating their hide. As such, I, the seeker, wouldn't know it was not up to my standards until I actually sought it.

 

Or what about a cache that's inside a posted, fenced construction site? That would fall outside the spectrum of my standards. My psychic abilities are not very good, so once again, I wouldn't know that the cache was on the far side of the fence until I actually went looking for it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I'm not sure what your point is here. If the cache is beyond the "no trespassing" signs, it should be archived. If the coordinates are 60 feet off, they should be corrected. Either way, the owner's attention is required and a reviewer may need to become involved.

 

Every cache needs to be taken on it's own merit. By merit I mean it's actual circumstances. Not presumed and assumed. Clan R pointed out a viable cache with an actual problem the problem being the property owners and not the cache. It would violate your "beyond the the sign" rule and you may pull the plug on the cache yet the cache is good. Coordinates 60' off may or may not need corrected, and may or may not be correctable. I had a cache below high voltage transmission power lines, below tree cover, and alongside a cliff. Any of those can mess up coordinates, all three? It's a lost cause, pull out the clue.

 

This all brings me back to my point. Each cache needs to be taken on it's own merit. Not presumed and assumed.

[+Renegade Knight]

....There's a middle ground to be found here. If you notice a cache is violating a guideline, it's not always necessary to post a NA log or report it to a reviewer. You can mention it in your log or write a private message to the cache owner. Ignoring it out of "courtesy" to the cache owner is being discourteous to everybody else who plays the game.

 

The right thing to do is to contact the person responsible for the cache. That's the owner. This site isn't responsible, and quite frankly all they can do is pull the plug on the listing and even then only on this site. A cache can be listed on multiple sites and still be a problem even after this sites listing is archived. Assuming of course the cache did have a real and actual problem.

[+flask]

what i think some people are losing sight of is that geocaching is less and less of an underground activity and more and more of a mainstream one. landowners and LEOs more often than not have heard of it.

 

busybodies are hearing of it too, and they don't like it, as are landowners who really want people to stay offa their lawn, imagining their lawn to be everything they can see from their house.

 

while of course you don't cause any problems and i don't cause any problems, clearly there are people who DO cause problems. a guy illegally riding his ATV on trails or a landowner who thinks he has the right to post public land can make things very uncomfortable for us collectively.

 

there are certain things we as a group have to do in order to maintain the goodwill of land managers on whom we increasingly depend. when there were only a few caches, it didn't really matter where they were. in order for us to place a bazillion caches all over the planet and be able to search them undisturbed, we need to make use of more and more space.

 

meeting the concerns of land managers and LEOs is a very good way to do this, and since there are way too many of us to sit down and come to consensus what's the best practice for every location, the aggregated wisdom of millions of cache hunts can be condensed and used to form the basic rules that for flexibility's sake we're calling guidelines.

 

i don't like all of the guidelines; i think a knife makes lovely cache swag, and i have nothing against prudently buried containers.

 

but when i play the game as offered by geocaching.com, i play it according to their rules.

 

if you do not like playing according to the rules set here, you may feel free to play the game under different auspices.

[+narcissa]

 

The right thing to do is to contact the person responsible for the cache. That's the owner. This site isn't responsible, and quite frankly all they can do is pull the plug on the listing and even then only on this site. A cache can be listed on multiple sites and still be a problem even after this sites listing is archived. Assuming of course the cache did have a real and actual problem.

 

Since this is the most widely-used and well-known caching website, archiving a geocache that doesn't meet the guidelines (whether it's removed or re-listed elsewhere) does have a considerable effect.

 

When there is a problem geocache that gets media attention, and it's listed here, it makes the entire community at Geocaching.com look bad.

 

When Geocaching.com can point to their database and show that a problem geocache ISN'T listed here, it demonstrates that the guidelines aren't just talk - they're real standards that the community works together to uphold.

 

What individuals and other geocaching sites choose to do is their business. It's pretty weak to argue that we shouldn't uphold community standards because other sites don't bother.

[+Setan Meyacha]

Unless the cache location poses imminent danger to a cache seeker, the issue should be taken up with the CO first. But, keep in mind that we all have the choice to make in pursuing a cache that appears to be in a dangerous location.

One of my first few caches violated one of the rules of placing caches and the reviewer not only notified me of the violation but also offered up an acceptable solution so I could keep the location as part of a multi-cache that has been fairly popular. I think, in most cases, the reviewers are quick to notice when a cache may be in violation of one of the 'rules'. In those cases where they might miss one because they are unaware of property issues, it is still best to contact the CO first and express your concerns in a 'tone' that you would use in a face-to-face meeting. I am not, by any stretch, an authority on all the rules and would hope not to come across that I am in offering up a suggestion or concern to a CO who MAY have violated one of the rules of cache placement.

[+Renegade Knight]

...When there is a problem geocache that gets media attention, and it's listed here, it makes the entire community at Geocaching.com look bad.

 

When Geocaching.com can point to their database and show that a problem geocache ISN'T listed here, it demonstrates that the guidelines aren't just talk - they're real standards that the community works together to uphold.

 

What individuals and other geocaching sites choose to do is their business. It's pretty weak to argue that we shouldn't uphold community standards because other sites don't bother.

 

The geocaching community is all of us wherever we may be on whatever site we may list on. It includes this site, Navicache, Opencaching, Terracaching and others. It includes finders, and owners, Wolves and Sheepdogs.

 

My argument is that you work with the cache owner on cache issues. You do that for two reasons. The first being they are the responsible party. Not this site. Read the Terms of service for this site if you have any confusion about who's responsible for a cache. The other reason is they are the only ones in a position to fix a cache on more than this site if it's cross listed.

 

When geocaching.com can point to their database and show that a problem cache isn't listed here, geocaching still gets a black eye. A listing is just that. A listing, one aspect of the larger community. It pays to go to the responsible party for a real solution and not just a bandaid.

 

When you say what individuals and orther sites do is their own business, your ripping apart your own argument about community standards. If you want to uphold community standards, you need to work with the community. All of it.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Renegade Knight

[+Jeep_Dog]

I want to see it survive not policed by cache tattle tales, you will see you are ruining it for yourself Its going to be virtually impossible to place a cache in the future if you keep sniveling about everything all my caches are in compliance of the not here not there rules.

Eventually people reporting or cache policing is going to no fun and discourage people from hiding or even participating in this sport.

I guess you need 20,000 caches or have 31,062 posts to count in this sport huh?

Its like to kids fighting over a toy telling on each other, eventually someone is going to take it away correct?

 

Nice. So, in your eyes, would an observation on a cache such as this one constitute in your esteemed opinion as "sniveling" and or "cache policing?"

 

Or perhaps, merely an honest and open observation?

[Clan Riffster]

"sniveling" and or "cache policing?"

I'm leaning toward open and honest observation. That one needed to go away.