metal plates & other dubious cache attachments

[+JL_HSTRE]

I've seen many magnetic key cases attached to metal plates on non-metal objects. Usually the underside of a wooden bench but at least one attached to a tree. I've wondered about whether this kind of placement is okay; it always felt a little dubious to me. Let's assume public property like a park, which is I think where they have all been.

 

Is a metal plate affixed to the underside of a bench or table okay? Does it matter if the plate is glued vs nailed/screwed?

 

On a similiar vein, one park I visited last year had several film can caches where the lid was nailed/screwed into a tree (so the can was perpendicular to the tree, with the lid fixed in place and the bottom removeable).

 

As a general rule, should any permanent affixing (glue/screws/nails) of either the cache container or the container's attachment/mount require explicit permission to be placed in that way?

[+va griz]

It seems to me that something like a small plate screwed to the bottom of a bench would not bother the manager of the place even if they knew it was there. So even without specific permission it doesn't bother me. A tree seems different to me. I have been thinking about placing a cache sort of related to that so I am interested to hear other opinions.

[+KoosKoos]

I don't think a cache hider should screw anything into another object without permission. From the guidelines:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=304

 

"Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find."

 

Key point: No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place

[knowschad]

.

Edited March 31, 2011 by knowschad

[+bflentje]

Three things...

 

- Don't screw into the tree unless you own it or it's dead.

- If you do violate #1, you're a knucklehead but it won't kill the tree.

- Film cans in a tree out in the woods? Really? Come on people.

[+Semper Questio]

Yup. Gotta side with KoosKoos on this one. The only possible exception being if the CO asked the property owner if they could do the alteration.

[+Too Tall John]

On a similiar vein, one park I visited last year had several film can caches where the lid was nailed/screwed into a tree (so the can was perpendicular to the tree, with the lid fixed in place and the bottom removeable).

Wow, aside from just the bad idea of putting holes in trees that don't belong to you, there's the question of why would someone put a hole in the lid of a container that already isn't actually waterproof.

[+Ecylram]

On a similiar vein, one park I visited last year had several film can caches where the lid was nailed/screwed into a tree (so the can was perpendicular to the tree, with the lid fixed in place and the bottom removeable).

Wow, aside from just the bad idea of putting holes in trees that don't belong to you, there's the question of why would someone put a hole in the lid of a container that already isn't actually waterproof.

 

Found a guardrail cache where someone put a hole through the lid of canister, put a hole through the canister and then threaded a zip tie through both and attached to the guardrail. Or it least it was at one time. The tie had broken so it was a loose container with a hole in the lid and body.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Yup. Gotta side with KoosKoos on this one. The only possible exception being if the CO asked the property owner if they could do the alteration.

 

The guideline that KoosKoos quoted does not suggest that an exception can be made if a property owner grants permission. Even in a case where a CO obtained explicit permission to screw a metal plate on the underside of a wooden bench, it's unlikely that they're going to include a statement about permission to do so in the cache description. Then along comes a new geocacher who, finds the caches and thinks it would be a great way to hide a cache of their own...but doesn't obtain permission from a property owner to do so. This is one of those cases where there may be many caches out there which violate the guideline that new cachers will see a precedent for their own hides. Because a CO is not required to describe *how* a cache is hidden, and reviewers don't visit every cache before they're published they won't know that the guideline has been violated unless someone reports it. For that reason a "No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find." without any exceptions regarding permission makes sense.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Hey... look what I brought to the party!

A little early for popcorn...............how about a donut.

 

Don't use nails or screws for live trees, it's just not a good idea. I like how NYPaddleCacher explained why.

Edited March 31, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

[knowschad]

.

Edited March 31, 2011 by knowschad

[+sbell111]

Yup. Gotta side with KoosKoos on this one. The only possible exception being if the CO asked the property owner if they could do the alteration.

 

The guideline that KoosKoos quoted does not suggest that an exception can be made if a property owner grants permission. Even in a case where a CO obtained explicit permission to screw a metal plate on the underside of a wooden bench, it's unlikely that they're going to include a statement about permission to do so in the cache description. Then along comes a new geocacher who, finds the caches and thinks it would be a great way to hide a cache of their own...but doesn't obtain permission from a property owner to do so. This is one of those cases where there may be many caches out there which violate the guideline that new cachers will see a precedent for their own hides. Because a CO is not required to describe *how* a cache is hidden, and reviewers don't visit every cache before they're published they won't know that the guideline has been violated unless someone reports it. For that reason a "No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find." without any exceptions regarding permission makes sense.

From the guidelines:

If you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com.

Edited March 31, 2011 by sbell111

[+ZSandmann]

The common rule of thumb is that once a cache is removed there should be no trace it was ever there.

 

Velcro would be a better method of adhesion than glue or screws in this situation imo.

[+Semper Questio]

Yup. Gotta side with KoosKoos on this one. The only possible exception being if the CO asked the property owner if they could do the alteration.

 

The guideline that KoosKoos quoted does not suggest that an exception can be made if a property owner grants permission. Even in a case where a CO obtained explicit permission to screw a metal plate on the underside of a wooden bench, it's unlikely that they're going to include a statement about permission to do so in the cache description. Then along comes a new geocacher who, finds the caches and thinks it would be a great way to hide a cache of their own...but doesn't obtain permission from a property owner to do so. This is one of those cases where there may be many caches out there which violate the guideline that new cachers will see a precedent for their own hides. Because a CO is not required to describe *how* a cache is hidden, and reviewers don't visit every cache before they're published they won't know that the guideline has been violated unless someone reports it. For that reason a "No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find." without any exceptions regarding permission makes sense.

 

My bad for not explaining the "possible exception" part which was my addition to what KoosKoos said, not (as far as I know) his intent.

 

I know about the future cachers, and reviewers not visiting caches, etc. The point you missed is that there are always exceptions made. That page of the guidelines also says not to place a cache every 600 feet just because you can, yet reviewers are approving power trails. Granted, I seriously doubt that every placement of a micro using velcro tape under a bench was duly reported to a reviewer, but I'm not so sure it would definitely not be approved if it were and even less so if the CO could demonstrate property owner approval.

 

But setting that aside, going with a blanket "thou shalt not...", and playing devil's advocate; how many folks post an NA log for every cache that they find that uses nails, screws, adhesives, etc. to attach a cache? Even magnets can mar metal surfaces. Should they be reported as well? I've seen many LPC's that caused the finish on the lamp post to be badly scratched from lifting the bolt skirt. Does the part of that guideline that says, "Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe." mean LPC's should, in fact, be disallowed due to that damage? Interesting.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

But setting that aside, going with a blanket "thou shalt not...", and playing devil's advocate; how many folks post an NA log for every cache that they find that uses nails, screws, adhesives, etc. to attach a cache? Even magnets can mar metal surfaces. Should they be reported as well? I've seen many LPC's that caused the finish on the lamp post to be badly scratched from lifting the bolt skirt. Does the part of that guideline that says, "Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe." mean LPC's should, in fact, be disallowed due to that damage? Interesting.

 

To me, it boils down to this. Just because a cache *can* be placed such that it doesn't violate guidelines, doesn't mean that it *should* be placed. It's quite possible to place a cache in a manner that adheres to the guidelines, but is still a really bad idea.

 

Okay, so that guidelines provide for an allowance for a novel idea, but every time a cache is published which takes an advantage of an exception, an allowance by GS, or a loophole in the language in the guidelines, there are some that are going see it not as an exception, but as a precedent for placing their own cache.

 

As far as posting NA logs on caches that might violate the guidelines there is an unfortunate stigma do posting NA logs in general. Many won't do it simply to avoid any sort of drama with someone else in the local geocaching community. In many case, it would be possible to place a cache with screws, nails, or adhesive such that the impact is negligible, but it's also possible to do such that the impact is not so benign. At the end of the day, if a cache placement is likely going to cause issues with land manager or in any way contribute to a bad reputation about geocaching in general it should probably be reported. If not, most geocachers would likely let minor violations slide.

[+sbell111]

 

But setting that aside, going with a blanket "thou shalt not...", and playing devil's advocate; how many folks post an NA log for every cache that they find that uses nails, screws, adhesives, etc. to attach a cache? Even magnets can mar metal surfaces. Should they be reported as well? I've seen many LPC's that caused the finish on the lamp post to be badly scratched from lifting the bolt skirt. Does the part of that guideline that says, "Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe." mean LPC's should, in fact, be disallowed due to that damage? Interesting.

 

To me, it boils down to this. Just because a cache *can* be placed such that it doesn't violate guidelines, doesn't mean that it *should* be placed. It's quite possible to place a cache in a manner that adheres to the guidelines, but is still a really bad idea.

 

Okay, so that guidelines provide for an allowance for a novel idea, but every time a cache is published which takes an advantage of an exception, an allowance by GS, or a loophole in the language in the guidelines, there are some that are going see it not as an exception, but as a precedent for placing their own cache.

Also from the guidelines:

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it.

Edited March 31, 2011 by sbell111

[+JL_HSTRE]

Velcro would be a better method of adhesion than glue or screws in this situation imo.

 

I've seen quite a few caches that were attached by velcro where the velcro strip is not removed after the cache has been archived or the container changed. Isn't the velcro strip usually glued on? Does seem better than screws though.

 

As far as posting NA logs on caches that might violate the guidelines there is an unfortunate stigma do posting NA logs in general. Many won't do it simply to avoid any sort of drama with someone else in the local geocaching community. In many case, it would be possible to place a cache with screws, nails, or adhesive such that the impact is negligible, but it's also possible to do such that the impact is not so benign. At the end of the day, if a cache placement is likely going to cause issues with land manager or in any way contribute to a bad reputation about geocaching in general it should probably be reported. If not, most geocachers would likely let minor violations slide.

 

If you know the CO, you may wish to discuss them directly but politely if you feel they will be receptive to your concerns. They may simply not be aware of the guidelines.

 

If you're concerned about "blowback" from either posting a NA log or contacting the CO you can always send a message to the appropriate Reviewer expressing your concerns.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Joshism

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

But setting that aside, going with a blanket "thou shalt not...", and playing devil's advocate; how many folks post an NA log for every cache that they find that uses nails, screws, adhesives, etc. to attach a cache? Even magnets can mar metal surfaces. Should they be reported as well? I've seen many LPC's that caused the finish on the lamp post to be badly scratched from lifting the bolt skirt. Does the part of that guideline that says, "Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe." mean LPC's should, in fact, be disallowed due to that damage? Interesting.

 

To me, it boils down to this. Just because a cache *can* be placed such that it doesn't violate guidelines, doesn't mean that it *should* be placed. It's quite possible to place a cache in a manner that adheres to the guidelines, but is still a really bad idea.

 

Okay, so that guidelines provide for an allowance for a novel idea, but every time a cache is published which takes an advantage of an exception, an allowance by GS, or a loophole in the language in the guidelines, there are some that are going see it not as an exception, but as a precedent for placing their own cache.

Also from the guidelines:

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it.

 

I am quite familiar with the no precedent guideline and since I've quoted it several times in the past in this forum that should have been apparent. The precedence issue certainly comes up here often enough to suggest that there are a lot of geoachers that just check the "I have read an understand the guidelines" but didn't actually read them.

 

If someone submits a cache for publication based on what they've found in the field rather than what they read in the guidelines they're not only going to read the phrase about altering an object or property to hide a cache, they're also going to read the guideline about precedence. In the scenario I'm talking about they've done neither, or *did* read the guidelines but chose to ignore them. Either way, if the cache listing doesn't describe how it was hidden, and there are no other issues, the cache would be published and the "damage is done" unless someone reports it.

[Clan Riffster]

Taking the "Thou shalt alter no object" idea to the extreme makes me wonder if night caches inherently violate the guidelines. Many are created by shoving a thin, pointy piece of steel into a tree trunk. While this certainly does not "harm" the tree, it does alter it, though you'd need a microscope to detect the change once the Firetack is removed. Since I own four active night caches, each with well over a hundred reflectors, I hope that the guidelines don't get interpreted to prohibit them.

[+sbell111]

 

But setting that aside, going with a blanket "thou shalt not...", and playing devil's advocate; how many folks post an NA log for every cache that they find that uses nails, screws, adhesives, etc. to attach a cache? Even magnets can mar metal surfaces. Should they be reported as well? I've seen many LPC's that caused the finish on the lamp post to be badly scratched from lifting the bolt skirt. Does the part of that guideline that says, "Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe." mean LPC's should, in fact, be disallowed due to that damage? Interesting.

 

To me, it boils down to this. Just because a cache *can* be placed such that it doesn't violate guidelines, doesn't mean that it *should* be placed. It's quite possible to place a cache in a manner that adheres to the guidelines, but is still a really bad idea.

 

Okay, so that guidelines provide for an allowance for a novel idea, but every time a cache is published which takes an advantage of an exception, an allowance by GS, or a loophole in the language in the guidelines, there are some that are going see it not as an exception, but as a precedent for placing their own cache.

Also from the guidelines:

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it.

 

I am quite familiar with the no precedent guideline and since I've quoted it several times in the past in this forum that should have been apparent. The precedence issue certainly comes up here often enough to suggest that there are a lot of geoachers that just check the "I have read an understand the guidelines" but didn't actually read them.

 

If someone submits a cache for publication based on what they've found in the field rather than what they read in the guidelines they're not only going to read the phrase about altering an object or property to hide a cache, they're also going to read the guideline about precedence. In the scenario I'm talking about they've done neither, or *did* read the guidelines but chose to ignore them. Either way, if the cache listing doesn't describe how it was hidden, and there are no other issues, the cache would be published and the "damage is done" unless someone reports it.

In that case, no geocaches should ever be placed. This is the only way to ensure that your suggested 'guidelines skippers' don't cause a problem, right?