Am I naive or over reacting

[+fat boy slow]

I have had to disable my cache Clifton House School

 

or at least I feel I should.

 

I would welcome comments on this, particularly from any one who has found it.

 

I thought when I placed it that it may be a bit tricky for some as there is a very obvious and commonly used hiding place very close to the cache but not for one minute did I think that the wall would be touched, never mind damaged but alas that that is what has happened.

 

 

Now I really hope that it was not a cacher who did this but I did not feel I could leave the cache in place ( approx 10 ft ) so close to the damage, as if a muggle found the cache I felt that it could bring our hobby into disrepute.

 

The cache was not in or on the wall but was hidden well camoflagged in the bush to the right of it

 

 

Was I just too naive when I placed the cache ?

Am I over reacting now ?

 

All comments welcome ....

[+Happy Humphrey]

Good move disabling the cache; even if the damage was not caused by geocachers they might get the blame.

 

The description should have made it clear that the cache is not in the wall. Really clear.

 

Ideally you could get together with a few other local cachers and offer to get the damage repaired (whilst not admitting that you suspect that geocachers caused it). Otherwise I'd advise archiving it.

[+eusty]

Just a coincidence I guess, but I wouldn't blame yourself...I can't believe a cacher would have done that!!

Has anyone logged anything strange??

[thepowellfamily2010]

A few, spoil it for the many.

[+KBfamily]

A few, spoil it for the many.

 

Always....sadly, always...

[+Bear and Ragged]

I'm tempted to say it's the local youths...

Probably best to Archive, or move it well away from that part of the wall.

[+Lonewolf_Geocaching]

I am really glad you took action on the cache. That was very sociable of you to disable the cache and avoid a possible negative backlash on the geocaching community as a whole. This is very commendable.

 

I would suggest not archiving it just yet but a move might be best to avoid activity in the immediate area. I would now move the cache because everyone will be on the look out for people trashing the place now. Therefore, it would not be fair on the next hapless cacher who might be confronted by the local neighbour hood watch or local police whilst "acting suspiciously".

[+Graculus]

This is why we don't publish caches in dry stone walls. So much damage has been caused in the past by cachers searching. Problem is your GPS when you place the cache may have 20 to 30 feet (7 to 10 meter) accuracy. People finding it may have a similar accuracy so that means you could be searching a stretch of wall some 60 feet (20 meters) long! That's a lot of stones to move and wall to damage! It's also why, if we think (or are told) the cache is in a wall that is mortared (as this one is) but already in a poor state of repair we may not publish it.

I don't think cachers do the damage deliberately but if a stone looks loose you would pull it out to see if the cache is behind. That loosens the mortar and the next cacher notices that TWO stones look loose so remove both of them and so on.

Thank you to the owner in this case for disabling the cache.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

Edited April 26, 2011 by Graculus

[+Mark+Karen]

Agree with the above, archive the cache! Chances are it wasn't geocachers who caused the damage but as you say, geocaching could get the blame and we could well do without that.

[+Mallah]

This is why we don't publish caches in dry stone walls.

Err, I'm afraid you (collective you) do. One published near me on Sunday, but I guess from the description/s you have no way of knowing exactly where it is. We had a similar discussion last year when I suggested that we should send pictures of where the cache is so that you can consider things like this. I suspect the picture above just adds to the need to do this.

[+Mad H@ter]

This is why we don't publish caches in dry stone walls.

Err, I'm afraid you (collective you) do. One published near me on Sunday, but I guess from the description/s you have no way of knowing exactly where it is. We had a similar discussion last year when I suggested that we should send pictures of where the cache is so that you can consider things like this. I suspect the picture above just adds to the need to do this.

I take it that you posted a Needs Maintenance log or probably more appropriately a Should Be Archived log to bring it to the reviewers attention.

[+Mallah]

Agree with the above, archive the cache! Chances are it wasn't geocachers who caused the damage but as you say, geocaching could get the blame and we could well do without that.

I think there are arguments to point the finger at us. IF the stone was loose it would certainly look like a hiding place, although I would have doubts personally about such a large stone to move in an area that is described as having high muggle factor - but that doesn't always click when you are on the find. Second, the hint given in the description in some ways suggests that is the hiding place? i.e. you won't find it by just sitting there. The wall looks like the sort of place you might sit, and therefore a loose stone just underneath would be an obvious place.

 

As for who actually 'moved the stone' (well it is Easter) then I guess we will never know, but even if it was cachers, it's a pity it wasn't replaced.

[+keehotee]

Just a coincidence I guess, but I wouldn't blame yourself...I can't believe a cacher would have done that!!

 

Why can't you believe a cacher would do that?

 

There may have been a time when the only people likely to be caching were those who already owned a GPS, and knew other cachers. But unfortunately nowadays, anybody with a GPS enabled phone is encouraged to have a go!

 

The more people get brought into caching, the more representative of society we become. Why should that only be responsible, non-vandalising people?

[+Mad H@ter]

Why can't you believe a cacher would do that?

I had been thinking exactly the same, I'm sure that we've all seen areas around caches trashed, particularly in the FTF frenzy when first placed. Sadly not all cachers are respectful of their environment

[+Kryten]

Why can't you believe a cacher would do that?

When I first started I wouldn't have believed it, but remember, caching is open to everybody, including selfish idiots.

[+*mouse*]

Why can't you believe a cacher would do that?

I had been thinking exactly the same, I'm sure that we've all seen areas around caches trashed, particularly in the FTF frenzy when first placed. Sadly not all cachers are respectful of their environment

 

Agree. We are representative of society of a whole, so the majority of us are responsible, but there will be a minority who are not. I've seen some places totally trashed by cachers and given the nature and location of the damage it can only have be cachers too. It's sad to see, but it does happen.

 

On this occasion I would suspect that the damage is not done by a cacher - it looks more like straight forward vandalism to me, but none of us can categorically say that. I think you've done the right thing in removing the cache and I would hold off a few weeks and see before deciding to replace, move or archive.

[+The Patrician]

This thread got me thinking. When I started geocaching there were 318 caches in the whole of the UK (according to the PQ I just ran). I suspect I could now find 300 within 20 miles of home, probably less! There are a lot more people geocaching now and some of them definitely are idiots, as proved by this thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=257210

 

Like it or not they're geocachers (of a sort) as well.

[+MartyBartfast]

I agree that it was a good idea to disable your cahce, however everybody's coming out like a bunch of outraged daily mail readers on this. I would just like to point out:

 

1. It's not a dry stone wall.

2. The mortar in the surviving wall is clearly loosening (particularly over on the right).

3. The shape of that stone is such that if the mortar completely failed it might well fall out of it's own accord (althought it's mus have subsequently been moved if it did so).

 

So this could simply be a case of poor/non-existant maintenance and natural weathering.

 

Anybody up for complaining about what the council is wasting the council tax on if they're not maintaining the walls?

[+Happy Humphrey]

I agree that it was a good idea to disable your cahce, however everybody's coming out like a bunch of outraged daily mail readers on this. I would just like to point out:

 

1. It's not a dry stone wall.

2. The mortar in the surviving wall is clearly loosening (particularly over on the right).

3. The shape of that stone is such that if the mortar completely failed it might well fall out of it's own accord (althought it's mus have subsequently been moved if it did so).

 

So this could simply be a case of poor/non-existant maintenance and natural weathering.

 

Anybody up for complaining about what the council is wasting the council tax on if they're not maintaining the walls?

You might be right, but the point is that as long as there's a cache right at the side of the wall, geocaching could be given the blame for enticing people into searching the wall and causing the damage (whatever the reality). So to archive the cache is not overreacting; it's just a sensible measure.

[+MartyBartfast]

I agree that it was a good idea to disable your cahce, ...

... So to archive the cache is not overreacting; it's just a sensible measure.

 

I agree, and said as much in my openning sentence, typo notwithstanding.

[+Gushoneybun]

This is why we don't publish caches in dry stone walls.

Err, I'm afraid you (collective you) do. One published near me on Sunday, but I guess from the description/s you have no way of knowing exactly where it is.

 

Reviewers can only go along the description/hint provided, I believe they are human so can make mistakes and miss a comment on a cache page, or in a hint or they have no idea that it is in a wall.

 

If you suspect the cache is in a drystone wall then drop the reviewer who published it or post a needs maintenance log on it or contact the owner. I have done all three over the years and sometimes I was wrong and on other occasions the cache was in the wall and was then moved or archived.

 

Back to the original comments: I personally would archive the cache and take the container away. This way there is nothing linking the area to caching, even if cachers had nothing to do with the wall.

[+thehoomer]

The disablement of this cache certainly gets my vote. I'm aware it wasn't in the wall but may be close enough for the possibility of cacher damage caused by those who have limited information, coupled with more than a modicum of carelessness.

It is purely personal choice but we have never logged caches in walls as 'found'. We email the owner and/or post a note on the page instead. If no action is taken, we then (usually making us unpopular )flag the cache to the reviewer to assess for archive.

My opinion would be to find another location much further away (possibly still within cache movement margins), or as others have said, may be archive and have a rethink.

Edited April 26, 2011 by thehoomer