Really bad cache ideas

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

I think someone here is a Wichtigtuer.

 

 

I only have one year of high-school German, but the internet has all the answers:

 

Wichtigtuer {m}

snob

bumble

meddler

busybody

panjandrum

cockalorum

Nosey Parker

troublemaker

wise guy [coll.]

stuffed-shirt [sl.]

pantopragmatic [joc.]

pompous a** [br.] [coll.]

Wichtigtuer {pl}

busybodies

Wichtigtuer {m} [ugs.]

know-all [coll.]

Wichtigtuer {m} [Politiker]

pothouse politician

 

It's relevant to the discussion that the pictures in question appear to be of caches listed on a website in Switzerland, and therefore the geocaching.com guidelines do not apply.

 

Is calling someone a nasty name a personal attack? What if you do it in a foreign language?

 

Educate me, I read Wichtigtuer as "Important door" so either I'm wrong in translation (very likely) or I don't know the story behind it to interpret it correctly (also very likely).

that's a good one

 

"tuer" can indeed mean "door", if it's written as the transliteration of "tür".

 

but "tuer" (pronounced as too-er) by itself is also a word, derived from "zu tun" = to do, to make. a "tuer" is therefore somebody who does something (a "doer"). a "wichtigtuer" is somebody who makes himself (appear to be) important to others.

Thank you both

[+sseegars]

Okay, everyone here show proof of permission for all your hidden caches.

[+briansnat]

I’ve seen all 4 of those styles, to some extent, and more. Often, my reaction is “Wow, I wonder how they got that one past the reviewer.”

 

Simple. The reviewer didn't know. Not all guideline violations are readily apparent to the reviewer and not every CO will volunteer to the reviewer that his cache violates the guidelines.

[+sseegars]

Hate their cheese, love their knives and I would absolutely LOVE geocaching there! Creative! And as was said before, I have probably found a variation on the theme of all the ones posted by the OP. Cache and let cache!

[+Vater_Araignee]

Okay, everyone here show proof of permission for all your hidden caches.

show me one of my caches that require permission and I'll give you proof that I have it.

Oh wait, I only have two, one located in a public spot that does not require it and another located in a public spot that does not require it.

Then there is my cache to be, located on private property. I can show you proof that I have permission simply by displaying a lease agreement should the need arise. Fortunately I'm not digging or sawing, so it wont.

[+dfx]

Okay, everyone here show proof of permission for all your hidden caches.

[+sseegars]

Okay, everyone here show proof of permission for all your hidden caches.

show me one of my caches that require permission and I'll give you proof that I have it.

Oh wait, I only have two, one located in a public spot that does not require it and another located in a public spot that does not require it.

Then there is my cache to be, located on private property. I can show you proof that I have permission simply by displaying a lease agreement should the need arise. Fortunately I'm not digging or sawing, so it wont.

 

Okay, everyone here show proof of permission for all your hidden caches.

 

THANKS FOR PLAYING! JOHNNY TELL WHAT THEY'VE WON!

[+Vater_Araignee]

Okay, everyone here show proof of permission for all your hidden caches.

show me one of my caches that require permission and I'll give you proof that I have it.

Oh wait, I only have two, one located in a public spot that does not require it and another located in a public spot that does not require it.

Then there is my cache to be, located on private property. I can show you proof that I have permission simply by displaying a lease agreement should the need arise. Fortunately I'm not digging or sawing, so it wont.

 

Okay, everyone here show proof of permission for all your hidden caches.

 

THANKS FOR PLAYING! JOHNNY TELL WHAT THEY'VE WON!

*fingers crossed* Say a case of fast tack adhesive.Say a case of fast tack adhesive.Say a case of fast tack adhesive...

[+NeecesandNephews]

[... Many of them requiring digging....

 

I thought you were not permitted to bury the cache itself. I didn't realize that no digging of any kind was permitted...

 

That blows my cache idea of a ground level trap door...

 

Or does it?

Show you own the property.

Show that the cache location is within property boundaries.

There you have it, just about any type of cache you want ready to be listed.

 

 

In my limited travels of the Forums I have seen some creative "interpretations" of the Guidelines, but this one wins the prize!!!!

[+kunarion]

I guess each person has his/her own idea on what a great cache is if you don't like it .. move on

It would be good to have a web site that works something like “ThisToThat.com”, which would let you run some cache scenarios. Maybe call it “CacheToThat.com”. Just a cache in a tree has tons of considerations. You can’t cut a hole, and you might not even be able to use an existing one (will animals tear out your cache to make a nest?). If it’s on a branch, there are pros and cons to using deciduous or evergreen. And if you intend to carve a compartment, it’s best to use a seasoned post (as in the OP’s picture), not a tree.

 

So there’s more to it than just passing up a cache you don’t like. Some people want to know why a cache isn’t allowed, or how to build one that makes it perfect for a given spot. And a hide that’s "bad" may be perfect in just one particular place.

Edited March 15, 2010 by kunarion

[+Vater_Araignee]

[... Many of them requiring digging....

 

I thought you were not permitted to bury the cache itself. I didn't realize that no digging of any kind was permitted...

 

That blows my cache idea of a ground level trap door...

 

Or does it?

Show you own the property.

Show that the cache location is within property boundaries.

There you have it, just about any type of cache you want ready to be listed.

 

 

In my limited travels of the Forums I have seen some creative "interpretations" of the Guidelines, but this one wins the prize!!!!

What, you honest think Groundspeak wont let a property owner modify their own property for a cache?

That GUIDE LINE is to prevent Joe Cacher from altering public and or private properties without permission and absolve Groundspeak of any liability for damages.

If it is your property, you have permission and they are not liable.

[+bittsen]

Am I the only one that thinks that all of these caches are awesome?

 

I thought that they were pretty creative and would give me a run for my money. I could see where some aren't the best places and killing a tree not so good but what if the tree was already dead???

 

I finished reading the thread and have a few more comments:

I have recently seen a whole bunch of new caches using the sprinklers that have been hollowed out and placed in bushes ... great hides in my limited knowledge of the game however by definition these are not allowed as they had to be placed (digging some ground out) ... and i have found some great caches in the ammo boxes i love those and it makes for a great hotel. I guess each person has his/her own idea on what a great cache is if you don't like it .. move on

 

Pauline

 

To be clear, it was pointed out a long time ago that pressing something into the ground is not digging. To qualify as digging, soil must be removed.

To push a fake sprinkler head into the ground is not digging (according to a reviewer who posts in the forums often).

[+TandPSeeker]

Am I the only one that thinks that all of these caches are awesome?

 

I thought that they were pretty creative and would give me a run for my money. I could see where some aren't the best places and killing a tree not so good but what if the tree was already dead???

 

I finished reading the thread and have a few more comments:

I have recently seen a whole bunch of new caches using the sprinklers that have been hollowed out and placed in bushes ... great hides in my limited knowledge of the game however by definition these are not allowed as they had to be placed (digging some ground out) ... and i have found some great caches in the ammo boxes i love those and it makes for a great hotel. I guess each person has his/her own idea on what a great cache is if you don't like it .. move on

 

Pauline

 

To be clear, it was pointed out a long time ago that pressing something into the ground is not digging. To qualify as digging, soil must be removed.

To push a fake sprinkler head into the ground is not digging (according to a reviewer who posts in the forums often).

 

Lets call it good, but i can honestly say that there have been several that have had the dirt well removed and not just pushed in ... but i love the game and am not going to knit pick it so that people stop hiding

[+bittsen]

Lets call it good, but i can honestly say that there have been several that have had the dirt well removed and not just pushed in ... but i love the game and am not going to knit pick it so that people stop hiding

Don't tell anyone but I've see a lot of guideline violations that I, um, forgot to report.

 

Nuff said.

 

[+thedeadpirate]

Lets call it good, but i can honestly say that there have been several that have had the dirt well removed and not just pushed in ... but i love the game and am not going to knit pick it so that people stop hiding

Don't tell anyone but I've see a lot of guideline violations that I, um, forgot to report.

 

Nuff said.

 

 

It's kind of like don't ask, don't tell.

 

When you come across it in the wild, it's generally not worth making a fuss over.

 

When someone posts it in the forums and announces it to the world, then it's kind of hard to look the other way.

[+NeecesandNephews]

[... Many of them requiring digging....

 

I thought you were not permitted to bury the cache itself. I didn't realize that no digging of any kind was permitted...

 

That blows my cache idea of a ground level trap door...

 

Or does it?

Show you own the property.

Show that the cache location is within property boundaries.

There you have it, just about any type of cache you want ready to be listed.

 

 

In my limited travels of the Forums I have seen some creative "interpretations" of the Guidelines, but this one wins the prize!!!!

What, you honest think Groundspeak wont let a property owner modify their own property for a cache?

That GUIDE LINE is to prevent Joe Cacher from altering public and or private properties without permission and absolve Groundspeak of any liability for damages.

If it is your property, you have permission and they are not liable.

 

Hello?? The post I responded to was about digging!! You might want to read again, the post I quoted and responded to, and then YOU quoted!!! Did I say anything about you hacking up your own trees on your own property??? Yeah... thats what I thought. Dig a hole on your own property and bury a cache and try to get it listed. At least without lying about it to the Reviewer. Let me know how that works out for you!!

[Clan Riffster]

Dig a hole on your own property and bury a cache and try to get it listed. At least without lying about it to the Reviewer. Let me know how that works out for you!!

I'm not much of a betting man, but I'd toss down a couple bucks that say this has been done already, and will be done again, with the full knowledge of the publishing reviewer. If I want to hide a mostly buried 5 gallon bucket in the pines of my front yard, I believe I could convince my reviewer to publish it, without needing to resort to prevarication. The prohibition against digging is a guideline, not a rule. For every guideline, there's probably a valid exception.

 

Does that mean a buried cache, on private property, is a good idea?

 

In my opinion, it is not, as others might choose to replicate such a hide on public property.

[+larryc43230]

Dig a hole on your own property and bury a cache and try to get it listed. At least without lying about it to the Reviewer. Let me know how that works out for you!!

I'm not much of a betting man, but I'd toss down a couple bucks that say this has been done already, and will be done again, with the full knowledge of the publishing reviewer.

The most popular cache, in terms of sheer number of finders, in my general area is just this sort of cache. The cache is located on private property owned by the cache hider, and a major component (but not the cache itself) is located in a bucket-sized hole. Finders are not required to dig to retrieve this component. I'm quite certain the reviewer had full knowledge of the setup that was used.

 

--Larry

[+NeecesandNephews]

Dig a hole on your own property and bury a cache and try to get it listed. At least without lying about it to the Reviewer. Let me know how that works out for you!!

I'm not much of a betting man, but I'd toss down a couple bucks that say this has been done already, and will be done again, with the full knowledge of the publishing reviewer. If I want to hide a mostly buried 5 gallon bucket in the pines of my front yard, I believe I could convince my reviewer to publish it, without needing to resort to prevarication. The prohibition against digging is a guideline, not a rule. For every guideline, there's probably a valid exception.

 

Does that mean a buried cache, on private property, is a good idea?

 

In my opinion, it is not, as others might choose to replicate such a hide on public property.

 

 

I agree!! Which is precisely what he said in the last paragraph of his post. Kinda like disagreeing with yourself!! Let me go to great lengths to tell you what the Guidelines say, why they say that, and then tell you (more or less) "feel free to ignore them, I do."

 

edit to add- The original post by bittsen was "really bad cache ideas," not "really bad listing violations."

Edited March 16, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+j0npau1]

I figured 2 wouldn't stay shut, and 3 would get the paper soaked. 4 is really disappointing.

 

As cool as those magnetic nut-and-bolt micro caches are, depending on the placement and clues, havoc can be wrought. For example, GC1VVPM is hidden near a flag. The actual cache site is about 8yd from GZ. What IS at GZ is the high-powered lamp that shines on the flag and its power box. As a result of the hint, "twist my threads," several of the screws to the box have been removed and lost.

[+kunarion]

"twist my threads,"

When I approach some lamp cache, and see wires hanging out, that’s the kind I avoid. I definitely won’t be unscrewing a cover plate.

 

Some of the worst caches for me are ones where I feel I’m an accomplice to the vandalism (such as where coordinates are painted on walls). I often wonder why the previous 500 finders never mentioned any issues, let alone how the CO decided it was a good idea to do the cache. And then I discover that over half of the 20 or so caches in some town are similarly “bad”. And they’re not even “cool” containers.

[+Coldgears]

I realize they are against the guidelines, but I would LOVE to find a cache like them. They are so creative! I don't see 2 and 3 as bad. 1 because of vandalism and 4 because of the live tree. But 2 is hidden in an already dug pipe, and 3 is in a dead tree.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Lets have a look here.

[... Many of them requiring digging....

 

I thought you were not permitted to bury the cache itself. I didn't realize that no digging of any kind was permitted...

 

That blows my cache idea of a ground level trap door...

 

Or does it?

(1)this is the post that response was too.

Show you own the property.

Show that the cache location is within property boundaries.

There you have it, just about any type of cache you want ready to be listed.

(2)I don't see a thing about digging here.

(3)anything about trees here?

 

(1)this is the response your talking about

In my limited travels of the Forums I have seen some creative "interpretations" of the Guidelines, but this one wins the prize!!!!

What, you honest think Groundspeak wont let a property owner modify their own property for a cache?

That GUIDE LINE is to prevent Joe Cacher from altering public and or private properties without permission and absolve Groundspeak of any liability for damages.

If it is your property, you have permission and they are not liable.

(3) nope, not here either

 

Hello?? The post I responded to (1) was about digging (2)!! You might want to read again, the post I quoted and responded to, and then YOU quoted!!! Did I say anything about you hacking up your own trees (3) on your own property??? Yeah... thats what I thought. Dig a hole on your own property and bury a cache and try to get it listed. At least without lying about it to the Reviewer. Let me know how that works out for you!!

Insert invisible text much?

 

~~~Edit to add~~~

If you where responding to G_Kelley or bittsen, then maybe you should have had enough forethought not to quote me.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[+Vater_Araignee]

Dig a hole on your own property and bury a cache and try to get it listed. At least without lying about it to the Reviewer. Let me know how that works out for you!!

I'm not much of a betting man, but I'd toss down a couple bucks that say this has been done already, and will be done again, with the full knowledge of the publishing reviewer. If I want to hide a mostly buried 5 gallon bucket in the pines of my front yard, I believe I could convince my reviewer to publish it, without needing to resort to prevarication. The prohibition against digging is a guideline, not a rule. For every guideline, there's probably a valid exception.

 

Does that mean a buried cache, on private property, is a good idea?

 

In my opinion, it is not, as others might choose to replicate such a hide on public property.

 

 

I agree!! Which is precisely what he said in the last paragraph of his post. Kinda like disagreeing with yourself!! Let me go to great lengths to tell you what the Guidelines say, why they say that, and then tell you (more or less) "feel free to ignore them, I do."

 

edit to add- The original post by bittsen was "really bad cache ideas," not "really bad listing violations."

Where did I contradict myself?

Just because I agree that a person has a right to use their property how they see fit doesn't mean I have to agree with how they do it.

Kinda like I agree you have the right to use your keyboard to spew your made up nonsense about me in a situation where I have equal opportunity to respond, it doesn't mean I agree that you should.

 

~~~double word~~~

Edited March 16, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'm all about protecting the image of the game and avoiding things which will give landowners reason to say no to geocaching, but I am against literal Guideline interpretations and rigid zero-tolerance policies as well.

 

Like all of life, geocaching exists in shades of gray. There are no absolutes; nothing is all-white or all-black, and every rule has exceptions.

 

Our Reviewers have some latitude and discretion precisely because every single cache placement is different.

 

The caches shown in the OP can all be great hides in the proper place.

 

Holes in the ground exist. No reason not to take advantage of them.

 

There is some validity to the concern about 'monkey-see monkey-do' where cachers might find a cache of this nature and take it one step too far when hiding theirs, but the chance of that is so slim and the chance that they would hurt the game in any disastrous way is so small that trying to enforce zero-tolerance just doesn't make sense.

 

It's kind of like the forums guidelines to avoid personal conflicts and running battles. It's never okay but sometimes the Mods let it run on.

Edited March 16, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+NeecesandNephews]

Dig a hole on your own property and bury a cache and try to get it listed. At least without lying about it to the Reviewer. Let me know how that works out for you!!

I'm not much of a betting man, but I'd toss down a couple bucks that say this has been done already, and will be done again, with the full knowledge of the publishing reviewer. If I want to hide a mostly buried 5 gallon bucket in the pines of my front yard, I believe I could convince my reviewer to publish it, without needing to resort to prevarication. The prohibition against digging is a guideline, not a rule. For every guideline, there's probably a valid exception.

 

Does that mean a buried cache, on private property, is a good idea?

 

In my opinion, it is not, as others might choose to replicate such a hide on public property.

 

 

I agree!! Which is precisely what he said in the last paragraph of his post. Kinda like disagreeing with yourself!! Let me go to great lengths to tell you what the Guidelines say, why they say that, and then tell you (more or less) "feel free to ignore them, I do."

 

edit to add- The original post by bittsen was "really bad cache ideas," not "really bad listing violations."

Where did I contradict myself?

Just because I agree that a person has a right to use their property how they see fit doesn't mean I have to agree with how they do it.

Kinda like I agree you have the right to use your keyboard to spew your made up nonsense about me in a situation where I have equal opportunity to respond, it doesn't mean I agree that you should.

 

~~~double word~~~

 

 

Whatever... you know what I was talking about even if you want to take excerpts to make it something else.

 

Hey!! Know what?? You win!!!!! k? Even though you clearly think owning the property gives you the right to ignore the guidelines, and encourage others to share your view.

 

Like I said... whatever.

 

Oh... and thank you so much for your positive contribution to the game and the Forums!!

Edited March 16, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+Vater_Araignee]

It's kind of like the forums guidelines to avoid personal conflicts and running battles. It's never okay but sometimes the Mods let it run on.

point taken.

[Andronicus]

The worst cache I have seen was a travel bug hotel that said "high muggle area". The CO was new, so probably did not ralise that his cache would likely end up getting several TB "lost".

 

One I recently DNFed (due to too many muggles) said something like "good luck avoiding the muggles". The CO's note just before I looked seemed to indicate that he (the CO) was supprised that it had been muggled twice, and if it happened again he would arcive it.

[Andronicus]

Funny that I caught this thread, because the other day I hid my very first geocache! Here's a picture of the area where I've hidden it. So.. am I doin' it rite?

 

 

Now I'm not going to point out exactly where it is in the picture, but I assure you that I didn't use any pointed tools at all to hide my cache. However, while I was there, I did see a bunch of guys all decked out in green who were using pointed tools to hide their circular green Lock&Lock caches! Shame on them! I yelled sternly over to them that they need to refresh their knowledge of the geocaching rules, especially the saturation rule where caches have to be placed 160m apart from one another (another rule they seemed to be "conveniently" forgetting about..)

Isn't the rule 161m. I think you need a review as well...

[+bflentje]

It's relevant to the discussion that the pictures in question appear to be of caches listed on a website in Switzerland, and therefore the geocaching.com guidelines do not apply.

 

Looking around the site, it appears to be a personal site dedicated to the owner's finding of geocaches, travel bugs, and geocoins listed on geocaching.com. Therefore, I would say that the geocaching.com guidelines would apply.

The one that I thought was really an Uncool Cache Container (without actually knowing the context) was the fake fire hydrant. Let's hope the nearby buildings never catch fire!

 

Sounds like an awesome idea to me.

[+bflentje]

Okay, everyone here show proof of permission for all your hidden caches.

 

Haha, that's a good one. You and I know that can't be done. Everyone here spewing their opinions do not always practice what they preach.

[knowschad]

It's relevant to the discussion that the pictures in question appear to be of caches listed on a website in Switzerland, and therefore the geocaching.com guidelines do not apply.

 

Looking around the site, it appears to be a personal site dedicated to the owner's finding of geocaches, travel bugs, and geocoins listed on geocaching.com. Therefore, I would say that the geocaching.com guidelines would apply.

The one that I thought was really an Uncool Cache Container (without actually knowing the context) was the fake fire hydrant. Let's hope the nearby buildings never catch fire!

 

Sounds like an awesome idea to me.

In the right place, yes! In fact, I know of a foundry not far from my house that makes hydrants. I also have a neighbor that works for them. Maybe I should ask if he can get us one!! We can hide it outside of your house.

[+mountainman38]

...As for you jokers (I assume you were joking) who pointed to my caches that are "bad ideas", I can't reply properly because this is a family friendly forum. This is a serious topic and would be nice if you could treat it as such.

 

Not intending to poke fun at you, bittsen, but I have to say your response made me larf.

[+bittsen]

...As for you jokers (I assume you were joking) who pointed to my caches that are "bad ideas", I can't reply properly because this is a family friendly forum. This is a serious topic and would be nice if you could treat it as such.

 

Not intending to poke fun at you, bittsen, but I have to say your response made me larf.

 

I'm all about making people laugh. Glad you liked it

 

[+sseegars]

It isn't important what caches you search.

It isn't important the caches you hide.

What is important, is how you play the game.

[avroair]

A gladware container can be OK in a caching environment if properly placed (under a footbridge for example) but under a rock or brick, bad idea.

 

I disagree. Most the caches I have found under a footbridge have been a poor example of where to hide a cache. They require access down to the cache, and very often cause erosion or damage to the embankment or of a stream.

[+bittsen]

A gladware container can be OK in a caching environment if properly placed (under a footbridge for example) but under a rock or brick, bad idea.

 

I disagree. Most the caches I have found under a footbridge have been a poor example of where to hide a cache. They require access down to the cache, and very often cause erosion or damage to the embankment or of a stream.

 

I don't want to sound condescending but if that is the sort of thing that bothers you then you should probably stop geocaching.

I saw LOTS of erosion around bridges long before geocaching existed. Around these parts a geocache near a footbridge would be found twice a month, on average, at best. That's not really enough activity to cause much permanent damage.