Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
jaygonude

Nudist geocachers

Recommended Posts

It's not just a matter of being let onto the grounds, or even of promoting the place. It's that, whether your intention or not, the cache is a come-on to get people to try out an experience they would have to pay for if they wanted to repeat it. Let me reiterate that I have no problem with that, I'm just guessing that geocaching.com would think it crossed a line if they ever got around to thinking about it.

 

How would that be different from a non-nudist campground? Don't they also charge to use their facilities?

 

It sounds like he's suggesting there is an agenda specifically to not allow a cache in a nudist resort if they only choose to apply the "no commercial aspect" selectively. Even if they are within the guidelines to deny such a cache, if they ordinarily "look the other way" in this gray area of the commercial aspect guideline, it seems convenient to use that reason.

 

Although I'm not clear from the comments (he says the "goal line was moved several times") was the cache page rewritten to be less of an advertisement? Was everything done to address the reasons they disallowed it. I'm sure if it was written in such a way that addressed whatever 'commercial' objections there were, you'd eventually have to get them to admit: "fine, it was denied because it was at a nudist resort"

 

If he refused to remove the 'advertising aspect of it' then fine, he was just trying to get business, then it should be denied.

 

Added: I just looked at the listing on the other website. On there it only refers to the nudist resort as "this facility" and not the resort by name, so it seems like that website has a similar non-commercial guideline, yet they allowed this cache. Hmm. interesting that gc wouldn't publish that, if they would do so for non-nudist campgrounds.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

It was probably not cool to make the "moving the goal line" crack without substantiating my allegations.

 

I had to split these across two posts due to the forum software's limit on the number of quotable text blocks. I apologize for the length of their length, but I want to be fair to all involved. Maybe this isn't goal-line-moving -- you tell me.

 

PART 1 of 2:

 

I was familiar with the listing guidelines and ensured that there was no commercial content.

 

On 28 April 2012 I sent the GC code of the listing to a local reviewer and asked them feasibility of the placement, before it was ever submitted for review.

 

After an immediate response that they'd confer with the other reviewers, I got this in a reply on 2 May 2012:

 

Should be no issue, I assume you have permission from location as you say free pass to find cache. Is the cache in the building? If so that would have to be addressed somehow, we can work that out when ready.

 

The coordinates were pointing at the facility's main building, as a placeholder location to make sure that the concept was acceptable. Given the response that it was OK to do this, I went there and scouted out an excellent location on a path in the woods in the back of the facility, on a nature(ist) path. Without bug juice -- oops. I am not a naturist and this was the first time I had been nude outside, intentionally. Not a problem -- this wasn't the first thing I had done outside my comfort zone for geocaching's sake (which is another reason why it is such an awesome activity).

 

The cache was submitted on 24 August 2012. The reviewers in my area are excellent and responsive, and when I didn't see any action on the listing I submitted a reviewer note on 27 August 2012 asking if there was a problem, and quoted the entire email from the reviewer indicating that this concept would fly.

 

On 30 August 2012 this was posted on the listing:

 

I know that we had talked previous about the area and idea. At that point the cache was closer to the entrance (inside) and I was thinking it was clothing optional, not mandatory nudity. The mandatory nudity is of concern as that does make it an additional logging requirement (ALR, (visit link) ), although it is required by the location. Is it possible to find a location near by that is clothing optional vrs mandatory?

 

(I will advise that the original listing included in bold: This means you MUST be unclothed to enter the facility to locate this cache)

 

I responded with a note that included this:

 

The not-clothing-optional requirement is only enforced when the weather is reasonable. This facility is open all year round (people live there) and a finder could go there when the weather is colder and make the find while clothed. This determination is made by the staff on a day-by-day basis.

 

Thus, a finder could wait until the winter and make the find clothed which could mean that the nudity isn't really a requirement within the ALR restriction, technically speaking.

 

Then on 31 August 2012 a note was added to the listing that included this:

 

I am going to ask you to go to appeals@geocaching.com about the mandatory nudity, as this is more an ALR. Even if moved to a challenge cache it would not be allowed, as being nude is not a geocaching accomplishment. This is something I need to toss up my chain due to the fact that is outside my range as reviewer, it doesn't mean it is a no, just that they need to be the ones to pass it. Is it possible to put in a location that the nudity is a choice and not compulsory?

 

So I submitted the listing to appeals, including this text:

The reviewer has wisely deferred approving or disapproving this cache and has left the decision up to you.

 

They suggest that the location has an ALR

 

It is my contention that the requirement is seasonal and can be circumvented.

 

Let me know?

 

Thanks!

 

And they responded that very day:

Hello frinklabs,

Thank you for writing in regarding GC3J3XD. We generally are accepting of naturists as this is a personal preference and a lifestyle. Thus, if people want to find this cache in the naturist facility, it is good that you include in the description what to expect.

Our logging requirements only require signing the physical log. Requiring photos or nudity are considered an Additional Logging Requirement and should only be optional.

Additionally, our commercial guidelines do not allow requiring to interact with employees in order to access the cache.

I suggest placing the cache outside the naturist facility so the cache can be accessible by anyone, clothed or unclothed and do not need to check in with the office staff.

Please update your cache accordingly and enable for review.

 

Since I believed I had addressed the alleged ALR aspect, I followed up with this:

Thanks for getting back so quickly.

 

Question: if there is a commercial guideline prohibiting employee interaction, how can there be an "Access or Parking Fee" attribute?

 

No response to that, so on 4 September 2012 I bumped the request with an email that included this:

I am going to ask you to make an exception to the guideline in this case, based on two factors. One, there is no commercial aspect to the interaction -- the cache seekers will not have to pay any monies to gain entry.

 

The other factor is that I went and placed the cache in good faith, after getting the pre-approval of the reviewers. I was careful to check with them ahead of time, which is what we are asked to do for unique, extraordinary placements.

 

Nothing for awhile so I sent a couple more messages implying that maybe there was a spam filter issue that was preventing them from seeing my messages and that I would contact them with new subject lined email (always give them a way out).

 

On 18 September 2012 I got this:

Hello frinklabs,

 

Thank you for your patience. My apologies for not resolving this sooner. We have received your update emails.

 

My biggest concern about the cache placement is the requirement to be unclothed to enter the facility. This is considered an Additional Logging Requirement, which is not allowed per the logging guidelines.

 

Clothing needs to be optional for the cachers that chose to find the cache. If the facility does not allow visitors to wear clothing, then please move the cache so it is not located in a nudity-only location. I understand this may affect the difficulty rating.

 

Your reviewer and I are less concerned about the parking fee (or complimentary pass) and communicating with office staff since there isn't a commercial aspect involved.

 

Unfortunately, we do not give exceptions on the Additional Logging Requirements.

 

Once you have moved the cache, please update the listing and coordinates accordingly and enable for review. The reviewer will review and publish or post a reviewer note if there are any further concerns.

 

I hope this helps further.

 

Happy caching,

Community Support, Groundspeak

Share this post


Link to post

PART 2 of 2:

 

I replied thus:

Thanks for getting back to me

 

If the weather is not conducive to being naked outside, they do not enforce the not-clothing-optional rule. Thus, if someone wanted to log this cache, they could attend the facility in the winter. I'd equate this with a canoe-only cache that you can walk to in the winter when the lake is frozen.

 

Note that if they did both (winter find, no clothes) they would absolutely be entered into that cache's Wall of Fame!

 

I am hoping that you will make an exception because moving it out of the facility would make it the same as any other roadside cache and what would be the fun of that?

 

I doubt that anyone will complain about an ALR given the uniqueness of this cache.

 

Thanks!

 

On 21 September 2012 I got a reply:

Thanks for responding. I agree, this is a unique cache location. I was honestly wondering how the community handles winter in Ontario. I'm glad they are flexible so people don't get hypothermia.

 

Unfortunately, we cannot grant an exception for allowing an ALR in order to find and log the cache. Yes, please move it outside the facility so clothing can be an option year-round. It will not be published otherwise.

 

I think it would still definitely be worthy to bring people to this community and facility. Even if the cache is easier to access from the parking lot, it would be better and much more interesting than not having the cache at all.

 

Thanks and good luck!

Community Support, Groundspeak

 

In response, I sent back this:

I had a look at the ALR guideline

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#logging

 

and it seems to indicate that an ALR would be a feature of the cache that would allow deletion of a log entry after the container has been found the the logbook signed

 

"For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional."

 

It seems that the limitations of getting to my cache are not categorically different than those requiring scuba gear or a boat, or being an astronaut.

 

If anyone is able to get to my proposed cache and sign the log, there is no grounds for deleting their log so I don't believe that this is an ALR.

 

I'd like to also mention again that I attended the location and placed the container in good faith, based on pre-approval of the local reviewer; I am hoping that this factor, combined with the clearly grey-area in which this cache finds itself re: ALRs would certainly give enough wiggle room (ha!) to publish my cache.

 

The upside of the no-precedent guideline is that you don't have to worry about others pointing to this cache and asking for an exception to be granted for theirs.

 

Re: moving the container outside the facility but still on the property -- I wouldn't ask my friend to tolerate having unknown parties lurking around the entrance to his facility. If you look at the Google streetview:

 

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=44.147317,-79.374998&spn=0.005712,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.147415,-79.375025&panoid=5a9iVBDpd7ZJbCBeannlIQ&cbp=12,73.52,,1,2.4

 

you can see that there two signs on either side of the driveway; while not visible in the picture, they are actually "warning" signs indicating that there are nude people beyond. This has made them a popular target for pilferage in the past; the current versions are perforated, bolted and glued to the posts to make them unusable if removed. This still does not stop people from trying and I don't want cachers to be confused with vandals.

 

Thanks - have a great weekend!

 

While waiting for them to cogitate on this, I went into these forums to see what was the consensus around a similar hypothetical. On 23 October 2012 I sent this back to appeals:

I was presented with an opportunity to run this by the community, in this forum thread about ALR's:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=303106

 

What was an interesting and salient point that came up is that caches are allowed inside libraries and other buildings. These facilities will certainly have a dress code ("no shoes, no shirt, no service"). How is the dress code for those types of locations not an ALR?

 

Thanks!

 

The very next day I got this response:

Libraries, parks, etc. might have their own visiting policies. This is their policy and not something that is required on the cache page. It can be suggested to please visit a park during park hours on the cache page for example, but we don't enforce if someone finds it at night. Libraries and other buildings enforce their own policies. The same is with this nudist camp. They can have their own policy and enforce it on their property, but it cannot be enforced on the cache page.

 

Your cache page still requires users that "This means you MUST be unclothed to enter the facility to locate this cache". Thus, you are not allowing cachers find the cache unless they are unclothed. This is why your cache has the ALR. If you remove this section and make it clear that clothing is optional, it may be allowed.

 

The reviewer initially said the cache may be ok before they knew that nudity was mandatory.

 

You stated in your recent email "As is my understanding, it was instituted to eliminate arbitrary activities which had no bearing whatsoever on getting to, or finding the cache. These requirements would allow over-controlling cache owners to delete logs of finders who didn't meet the very subjective requirements."

 

This requirement of being unclothed does not have any bearing whatsoever in finding this cache, so it is 'over-controlling' as you state.

 

Along with the other issues previously discussed regarding your cache, please reconsider your cache during the winter months before deciding whether you still want to have it active. This same issue has been discussed repeatedly for 2 months now.

 

My final answer: We will not publish your cache while this nudity requirement is in place.

 

Thank you and good luck.

 

So it appeared that their issue was with the wording of the "YOU MUST" line. As suggested, I changed the "you must be nude" wording to Note that this facility is known for its righteous approach to naturist principles such as its rejection of clothing-optional in favour of mandating nudity for all members and visitors.

 

Using the newly-created Bare Oaks team account I resubmitted the altered listing on 3 May 2013 asking for a publication on 1 June.

 

Immediately this was denied by another reviewer, citing all the same issues about ALR and commercial aspects.

 

So back to appeals, where they responded on 6 May 2013 with this:

We will not publish a geocache in a nudist facility because while some families choose this lifestyle, the majority of people in the larger community do not. Geocaches should be family-friendly to the greater public and therefore this cache does not meet our standards for publication. Even if it did, your reviewer is correct that mandatory nudity as an additional logging requirement and interaction with staff each would prevent publication. I am going to archive your cache now because this our final ruling on your appeal. Good luck with your next cache.
(emphasis mine)

 

Disappointed, I batted the ball back into their court with my response:

>>nudist facility

 

It is a naturist facility. People live there, including entire families, with children.

 

>>while some families choose this lifestyle,

>>the majority of people in the larger community do not.

 

Your reasoning is specious. The majority of the larger community does not own boats or mountaineering equipment, yet you publish caches on islands and on top of cliffs.

 

>>Geocaches should be family-friendly to the greater public and therefore

>>this cache does not meet our standards for publication.

 

You have not indicated how a family-owned and government-approved naturist facility is not family friendly, and your contention that it is otherwise is borderline prejudicial.

 

>>Even if it did, your reviewer is correct that mandatory nudity as

>>an additional logging requirement

 

Nowhere in the cache page did it say that logs would be deleted if the submitter was clothed. Again, this is flawed logic. It is like saying that the requirement for wearing shoes and a shirt in a library is an ALR to log a cache within.

 

>>and interaction with staff each would prevent publication.

 

You allow staff interactions where parking fees are being collected, in state parks. This is much more commercial than what I am proposing here, as there is no actual commerce -- entry is free when seeking the cache.

 

It is disappointing that I am going to have to list this on a different service because you guys are the best game in town.

 

Meanwhile, would you publish an event within this facility, if I were to submit one?

 

For whatever reason, I never got an answer from anyone about whether an event would be published, even after followups to appeals and the reviewers on 7 June and 24 July 2013.

 

That's when we listed elsewhere -- which is a story for another day and probably can't be related here due to AUP issues.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for the in-depth reply. It sounds like they truly were hung up (no pun intended) on the 'nudity required' aspect as being an ALR. I can understand their logic, however you make a good point about it, it technically isn't an ALR, as you aren't requiring them to be nude as a condition of logging, rather the facility is requiring it. I absolutely see that as more akin to being something required of the location (like scuba gear) than something the CO is requiring. If a finder could have found a way to log it without being nude (perhaps on a cold weather day that the facility wasn't enforcing the nudity-only rule) you certainly wouldn't have deleted the log, correct?

 

The question I guess is, if someone came to the gate and were let in to look for the geocache, would they not be allowed to enter and look for it without immediately disrobing? I'm sure a nudist resort understands apprehension of first-time visitors to immediately disrobe, it's a shame something couldn't have been worked out. I wonder if the facility might not have also considered waiving the nudity requiement for people just while looking for the cache, perhaps requiring disrobing only if visitors chose to "stay and visit" for a while afterwards. (I could understand if they wouldn't, if that's their guideline, I'm sure allowing clothed people to snoop around for a little while isn't something they want to encourage.)

 

I imagine after it went back-and-forth for so long GC.com was less inclined to "negotiate" about it. It seems that they would have been willing to allow a cache on the nudist grounds -- if only the phrase "nudity required" could have been removed. The phrase you quoted that Groundspeak used: "I think it would still definitely be worthy to bring people to this community and facility." indicates to me they were willing to work with you at the beginning. Based solely on the context of the emails you showed, I don't think they had an anti-nudist resort agenda, I think they honestly just thought that constitued an ALR.

 

Perhaps someone at a "clothing-optional facililty" rather than at a "nudity required facility" would be able to get a similar one published.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

It's not just a matter of being let onto the grounds, or even of promoting the place. It's that, whether your intention or not, the cache is a come-on to get people to try out an experience they would have to pay for if they wanted to repeat it. Let me reiterate that I have no problem with that, I'm just guessing that geocaching.com would think it crossed a line if they ever got around to thinking about it.

How would that be different from a non-nudist campground? Don't they also charge to use their facilities?

You aren't using the campground facilities, you're merely visiting their camp. The situation for a campground that's comparable to this cache would be that you get a free night of camping if you say you're getting the cache, and you have to use it, you can't just sign up for the free night and then ignore it.

 

By the way, another aspect of this is the commercial guideline: "We DON'T allow:... It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service." In the campground case, I don't know if that's just "conveniently" overlooked, or whether the placement of those caches is such that they can be found without actually having to enter the grounds or interacting with employees.

 

I just noticed that while I was writing this, the entire exchange was posted. I'm looking forward to reading it, although I'm already reasonably certain that my ruminations about a possible commercial viewing of this cache has nothing to do with why it was rejected.

 

Oh, one more thing: probably not helpful in this case, but there's a cache in my area that involves a nudist camp, although it doesn't provide free access. It gets around any commercial objection by being just outside the grounds in a location that would be a 10 minute walk if you paid for entrance and went through the camp, but can also be found without entering the grounds by taking a grueling 5 mile hike through a regional park.

Share this post


Link to post

...and when you removed the "you must" you replaced it with wording still indicating the facility requires the nudity and you included "we" and submitted it from the BareOaks account.

 

That would be like removing from the cache description that "the library makes you wear a shirt". The library can enforce that, but you can't point it out on the cache page, otherwise you are essentially making it a condition of finding the cache -- we told you that you have to wear a shirt to enter the library, so it's on us if you try to enter the library wthout a shirt. If you had left it up to the facility to choose to enforce that requirement without mention of it, then you aren't making it a condition of finding the cache.

 

If you can get to the deep sea cache without scuba gear, you can log it, but if you say on the cache page, the marine guard requires you to use scuba gear, than you are making it an ALR by effectively trying to enforce it on the cache page, I guess.

 

And by submitting it from the Bare Oaks account, then at that point they may have just thought you were trying to encourage business. If you had removed all mention of having to be nude and submitted it from the original account, it probably would have been fine, I'm guessing, even if nudity would still be required at the park, you wouldn't have been essentially trying to enforce it on the cache page. Would Bare Oaks have been okay with no mention of the nudity requiremnt on the cache page? Would they have wanted to deal with people coming to seek the cache unaware of the nudity requirement and would they have been willing to waive it if someone wanted to seek the cache without disrobing?

 

Although I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps they did just want to give you the run-around and had no intention on ever publishing a cache in a nudist resort.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

would they not be allowed to enter and look for it without immediately disrobing? I'm sure a nudist resort understands apprehension of first-time visitors to immediately disrobe, it's a shame something couldn't have been worked out. I wonder if the facility might not have also considered waiving the nudity requiement for people just while looking for the cache, perhaps requiring disrobing only if visitors chose to "stay and visit" for a while afterwards.

No it wouldn't be allowed. There are many reasons for this. The best thing to do is provide a link to the explanation: Why nudity is required.

:)

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for posting the entire exchange. A fun read! I was pleased to notice that they apparently actually considered the commercial aspects I expected them to be concerned about, and didn't consider them a serious problem. (Although they did mention them, as if laying groundwork for raising the objection later.) So that's a relief.

 

They have some legitimate points, but I also think you make some good arguments. I was particularly amused by your observation that it has to be considered family friendly since there are families living on the grounds. I share your disappointment, but I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions. I'm glad you decided to at least publish it at another site.

Share this post


Link to post

would they not be allowed to enter and look for it without immediately disrobing? I'm sure a nudist resort understands apprehension of first-time visitors to immediately disrobe, it's a shame something couldn't have been worked out. I wonder if the facility might not have also considered waiving the nudity requiement for people just while looking for the cache, perhaps requiring disrobing only if visitors chose to "stay and visit" for a while afterwards.

No it wouldn't be allowed. There are many reasons for this. The best thing to do is provide a link to the explanation: Why nudity is required.

:)

 

Well then I agree it probably shouldn't have been published. I have no qualms about Bare Oaks wanting to enforce that requirement of theirs, I'm sure they have their reasons, but I'm sure you can also understand why Groudspeak chose to consider that a requiremnt, even if technically it isn't an ALR (as in additional).

 

Had they been willing to remove the requirement Groundspeak probably would have published it.

Share this post


Link to post

but I'm sure you can also understand why Groudspeak chose to consider that a requiremnt, even if technically it isn't an ALR (as in additional).

 

It's a requirement like any other private place that has rules and conditions. The difference here is that it can even be circumvented by coming during cold weather. So no, I do not understand. :lostsignal:

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I don't know, I guess it'll take a smarter mind than mine to parse the nuances of the guidelines. Logically I guess you have a point. Perhaps a cache that is in a private place that has some sort of requirment for entry should be reported as being in violation of ALR requirements to see what Groudspeak would say and ask for clarification as to whether or not there is a contradiction between that and how they treated your case.

 

There are caches in a state park near me that requires a $2.00 entrance fee to get in. By this logic, that sounds like an ALR to me.

 

Maybe they did just have it in for you, I don't know what else to say.

 

I geniunely would like to see if, under these circumstances, a similar cache in a clothing-optional resort would be allowed.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if the ALR argument could be avoided by turning the description around: instead of "you must disrobe to seek this cache", which has been declared an ANR, how about "this cache is generally only available during inclement weather...unless you're willing to disrobe"?

 

Of course, Bare Oaks might not be as supportive of that wording. That's actually a good test of weather Bare Oaks is interested in the cache itself, or only the advertisement value of the cache.

 

Although I still think there will eventually be an objection because of the requirement to interact with an employee. You may see that as moving the goal posts, but I think that standard has been tightened up since 2012.

Share this post


Link to post

What if you simply stated that the facility is a nude only facility and left it up to the staff present to stress and enforce the nude only policy on the grounds?

Share this post


Link to post

Beautiful picture. If you ever come out to California check out De Anza Springs Resort. We have many caches that you can hike to nude.

Share this post


Link to post

How come all the pix of nude cachers are guys? Lets see some female nudies

Beautiful picture.

This post has been edited by Cascade Reviewer: Today, 02:52 PM

Reason for edit: Removed innapropriate link

Leave the forum for four hours and you miss everything.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

WOW, as much as I enjoy being naked... ya the thought of other naked geocachers is truly frightening... and the thought of caching naked... um ya.. probly not... as everyone has already pointed out the thorns, sticks, bugs, and thought of running into others puts that thought to rest fairly quickly. and where would I pack all my gear??

Share this post


Link to post

The theme of my latest podcast is Nude Geocaching. It includes a discussion of some of the debate that recently happened in this discussion thread and an interview with some nude geocachers. You can listen to it through the Naturist Living Show website, through iTunes, or on most other podcast aggregator sites such as Podbay, Stitcher, Castroller, Netcastia, Player.fm, Blurry, etc…

 

 

Awesome! I have a personal interest in the cache listing mentioned. :ph34r:

 

I could be wrong, but is the couple featured in the photo on the Naturist living website the never post here any more couple of t4e and dfx? :)

Share this post


Link to post

I could be wrong, but is the couple featured in the photo on the Naturist living website the never post here any more couple of t4e and dfx? :)

 

The couple is user LambdaMapcar. The photo is used with their permission. In fact, they are interviewed in the podcast.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I had an message complaining about a few people in this thread.

 

A discussion on this subject is not inappropriate, however there are a few that appear to be here just to hunt for photos. There are plenty of websites you can go to for that kind of thing. This thread is not for collecting or sharing those kinds of photos.

 

So those who wish to hunt for locations where this nude caching is allowed and appropriate, please continue. Those that are hunting something more (photos or links to photos) please try another website.

 

Thanks for understanding.

Share this post


Link to post

So those who wish to hunt for locations where this nude caching is allowed and appropriate, please continue. Those that are hunting something more (photos or links to photos) please try another website.

 

I couldn't agree with you more! People looking for images of nude people are kinda sad. Those of us who like nude geocaching may take pictures so that we can share our achievements. There is no shame in the nude human body. But we're not interested in feeding the prurient interests of those who objectify the human body. We are not exhibitionists. Hint: If you can't do it yourself and are just looking for pictures of others, you are a voyeur who exploits the human body instead of respecting it.

:mad:

Share this post


Link to post

I had an message complaining about a few people in this thread.

 

A discussion on this subject is not inappropriate, however there are a few that appear to be here just to hunt for photos. There are plenty of websites you can go to for that kind of thing. This thread is not for collecting or sharing those kinds of photos.

 

So those who wish to hunt for locations where this nude caching is allowed and appropriate, please continue. Those that are hunting something more (photos or links to photos) please try another website.

 

Thanks for understanding.

 

All I see is a guy who posted in February, and some guy who quoted him two weeks ago, and (presumably) posted a link to a naked picture of his girlfriend? Link removed by another moderator. It's unfortunate a couple of old and isolated incidents are causing the drama of a complaint and moderator warning. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post

Just be careful when you slam those ammo cans shut!

 

Urban caches would be the safest to go nude in. I couldn't imagine hitting any trails in the forest without clothes. What if I ran into another trail user?

 

Just be careful when you drop that light pole skirt!

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching naked, yep, we do it all the time. Caching has taken us to a lot of remote places and why not enjoy nature naturally? We usually cache in shorts anyway so you just learn how to navigate around bushes with minimal damage to your legs. We have never had a problem closing an ammo can or any other container while naked :)

 

 

NakedNHappyHunter & GoofyBareHunter

Share this post


Link to post

I've added another geocache to my "Nude Friendly Caches" Bookmark List:

 

GC28233 Fallen Forest Creature by BatmanGeocache

N 52° 54.914 E 005° 02.222

In Netherlands

[recommended by watani1972, thanks Watani]

 

Gary

aka Nudecacher

Edited by Nudecacher

Share this post


Link to post

Nude caching...Hmmm.

 

I would most definitely have to get in better shape before I give that a try. I'd need a tan, also. I could just see the local news reporting that some unsuspecting hiker had spotted the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, or the Michelin Man, in the local park. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Here are some of the caches we have done nude.

 

Jungle Woman GC49PP8 We left the cruise ship in search of a beach for nude swimming and tanning. This place was so perfect and had drinks too. We hid a cache there.

 

T.B.N. GC2E1NH Way out there. T.B.N. = Team Bushwack Naked

 

GEWs BIG BEACH GCR0XP This was an easy find from the nude beach on Maui.

 

M.A.N. GC451RC Our first attempt to get others to cache naked. M.A.N. = Mission Au Natural

 

M.A.N. #2 GC45BW6

 

M.A.N. #3 GC468M5

 

M.A.N. #4 GC46XAG

 

M.A.N. #5 GC49QZD

 

M.A.N. #6 GC4A336

 

All of the M.A.N. caches are far enough away to be comfortable going nude.

Share this post


Link to post

I've added another geocache to my "Nude Friendly Caches" Bookmark List:

 

GC28233 Fallen Forest Creature by BatmanGeocache

N 52° 54.914 E 005° 02.222

In Netherlands

[recommended by watani1972, thanks Watani]

 

Gary

aka Nudecacher

 

I'm not someone who will cache nude, but since also cachers who geocache with their clothes on might be able to help expanding your list I wonder what the criteria are.

I looked for instance at the logs at cache Fallen Forest Creature, but I couldn't figure out why this one is specific a nude friendly cache. Because of the mosquitoes and stinging nettles mentioned in several logs, I would think this one is the opposite of nude friendly, the only nude friendly aspect is that it seems to be at a part of the forest where hardly anybody goes.

Here in the Netherlands there are areas that are designated as suitable for naked recreation by municipalities. At all other areas naked recreation is allowed as well, unless it is clearly not suitable, which is of course a matter of opinion but for this common sense is the "guideline", so no busy places where a lot of (not nude) people are or might pass by.

 

Am I right that a forest/dune area etc. that is used by many people to walk their dogs, by scouting clubs etc. is not nude suitable/friendly, and neither are the caches there? And caches in areas of greenery where hardly anybody goes walking, so places that are hard to find by regular people and remote areas away from cycle paths are considered nude friendly enough for your list?

Share this post


Link to post

I've added another geocache to my "Nude Friendly Caches" Bookmark List:

 

GC28233 Fallen Forest Creature by BatmanGeocache

N 52° 54.914 E 005° 02.222

In Netherlands

[recommended by watani1972, thanks Watani]

 

Gary

aka Nudecacher

 

I'm not someone who will cache nude, but since also cachers who geocache with their clothes on might be able to help expanding your list I wonder what the criteria are.

I looked for instance at the logs at cache Fallen Forest Creature, but I couldn't figure out why this one is specific a nude friendly cache. Because of the mosquitoes and stinging nettles mentioned in several logs, I would think this one is the opposite of nude friendly, the only nude friendly aspect is that it seems to be at a part of the forest where hardly anybody goes.

Here in the Netherlands there are areas that are designated as suitable for naked recreation by municipalities. At all other areas naked recreation is allowed as well, unless it is clearly not suitable, which is of course a matter of opinion but for this common sense is the "guideline", so no busy places where a lot of (not nude) people are or might pass by.

 

Am I right that a forest/dune area etc. that is used by many people to walk their dogs, by scouting clubs etc. is not nude suitable/friendly, and neither are the caches there? And caches in areas of greenery where hardly anybody goes walking, so places that are hard to find by regular people and remote areas away from cycle paths are considered nude friendly enough for your list?

 

As you note, the criteria have to be subjective and your post hits the main points. Some nude friendly caches are in areas where nudity has traditionally been tolerated or is posted. Most of the caches on my list are in areas where there are few people who would pass by who could be offended. Since I can't check out every cache on the list, I have to rely on the judgements and reports that I receive from other interested geocachers. Most caches are at least somewhat out of sight and thus allow brief periods of nudity. In real life I'm a nudist and I created the Nudecacher persona for fun to make it appear to be more than the game it really is. In the early days, Groundspeak worked with me on the issue of what could be accepted in the photo galleries on their website. The policies they have worked out vary by the norms in different countries, but even that is somewhat subjective.

 

Be careful and have fun.

 

Gary

aka Nudecacher

Share this post


Link to post

Another cache that is legal to do nude.

 

Natural Exposure - Clothing Optional Cache GC57FMW

 

This is one we are looking forward to doing soon.

Share this post


Link to post

We just got back from a week long caching trip to New England and had a wonderful time caching nude and clothed. If we need to walk a great distance to a cache and no cars are in the parking lot and no one on the trails we feel comfortable to be naked. Check our page for one of our nude finds. We like to enjoy nature naturally.

Share this post


Link to post

We just got back from a week long caching trip to New England and had a wonderful time caching nude and clothed. If we need to walk a great distance to a cache and no cars are in the parking lot and no one on the trails we feel comfortable to be naked. Check our page for one of our nude finds. We like to enjoy nature naturally.

 

Just got back, eh? Isn't it getting a little cold there for nude caching? :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

I was thinking about the reaction of unsuspecting other hikers coming upon a nude hiker. The most common reaction is to laugh. Most people think it's funny. The common thought that people would be horrified just isn't the case. There are very few people with that reaction. The nude bike riders at the Fremont Solstice Parade in Seattle and the nude runners in the Bay-to-Breakers race in San Francisco are partly what make those events so popular. Even the Mayor of San Francisco had positive comments for the nude racers. I ran in the San Francisco race 5 years ago. That was a lot of fun. My estimate was that there were about 300 out of the over 60,000 runners that did it nude. My biggest problem was I was going too fast and it would be over. I slowed down to a slow walk on the second half so I wouldn't finish too soon. I did the 7.5 miles in just over 3 hours.

 

Gary

aka Nudecacher

The west coast Is a whole different world compared to the east coast

Edited by crazypig88

Share this post


Link to post

We just got back from a week long caching trip to New England and had a wonderful time caching nude and clothed. If we need to walk a great distance to a cache and no cars are in the parking lot and no one on the trails we feel comfortable to be naked. Check our page for one of our nude finds. We like to enjoy nature naturally.

 

What are we checking for? You leave one sentence cut & paste logs. I see nothing describing your enjoyment of natural nature.

Share this post


Link to post

We just got back from a week long caching trip to New England and had a wonderful time caching nude and clothed. If we need to walk a great distance to a cache and no cars are in the parking lot and no one on the trails we feel comfortable to be naked. Check our page for one of our nude finds. We like to enjoy nature naturally.

 

What are we checking for? You leave one sentence cut & paste logs. I see nothing describing your enjoyment of natural nature.

 

 

I was referring to the photos of our naked finds. We are not the best at going into details on each find or feel that most would understand the natural experience. That is showed here too by some making comments about watching when you close an ammo box etc. Is closing an ammo box different when you are clothed or naked? We enjoy the natural caching experience and in the future we may try to write more in the logs. We have a few cache hides where others are encouraged to cache naked but very few do. They always have excuses, they just aren't natural cachers and probably never will be.

Share this post


Link to post

. . .

We have a few cache hides where others are encouraged to cache naked but very few do. They always have excuses, they just aren't natural cachers and probably never will be.

 

Do I have them on my "Nude Friendly Caches" list so that the descriptions are labeled as Nude Friendly?

 

Gary

aka Nudecacher

Share this post


Link to post

My 6,000th find was a fun naked find :D . I have decided that for every 1000 milestone the cache will be found naked and that is what I have done. #6,000 was found on a great January day in FLA. My wife and I headed out clothed until the gps showed the cache was off the trail. Got in the proper caching attire and headed in the direction of gz. Yep, some bushwhacking but nothing we haven't encountered before and we know how to maneuver thru it. Cache in hand and some photos at gz and back to the bikes, a few more photos and off we went to find more adventures. Our naked caching continued more that day and finding some interesting props for photos made it more fun. Too bad we can't post any of our fun times here.

 

As of December 2014 we have now found caches in 49 states and been naked in all those states too, only Alaska remains. Several states we have done hours of naked caching. Another fun thing to to is search out cache names and find ones that have something to do with "Naked" in them or associated with "Naked"

 

We are looking forward to more naked geocaching as it begins to warm up again and naked cache as often as possible.

 

We have posted photos on several of the cache pages with appropriately placed containers or other items to show our adventures. No one had ever commented in a negative way to us.

 

Wish we could find more naked geocaching couples in our area.

Share this post


Link to post

Is closing an ammo box different when you are clothed or naked?

 

Yes, especially for a man it quite definitely is. Caching with overly warm clothes in summer increases the risk of heat exhaustion, and caching nude raises the risk of getting pinched when closing ammo boxes.

 

Personally, I would also be worrying about scratches and sunburn, among other risks, so it would *not* be a relaxing experience for me.

 

Edit to add mosquito bites and a bad case of poison ivy as examples of the risks of nude caching.

Edited by wmpastor

Share this post


Link to post

Just got back from a cruise and had the wonderful experience to geocache naked in St Martin. The cache GC4508E Orient Beach South - Frank John Richards is located just off the nude section of Orient Beach. That means "No Clothes/NoProblem" Mon! It was an enjoyable walk along the beach and we found Orient Beach cache first. Once at the Club Orient section we were happy to go "au natural" :) and continue our walk to the south side of the beach and on to the rocky shore and to the cache. Here we were able to get different photos of this great beach from another location than just where most tourists go. We ventured further down the rocks to the point to see the waves crash.

We had walked this same shore a few years ago but this time a cache being there made it a reason to back back. :D

Share this post


Link to post

Just had the pleasure of finding a nude cache in Wisconsin which is legal to do nude.

 

Natural Exposure-Clothing Optional Cache GC57FMW

 

Upon arriving at the parking area you take a very short walk to the undressing area complete with hangers. Following your gps you take a nice walk past gardens that were being planted and we got to see the owners working the hay field and baling the hay. We continued on to see a nice lake and the camping area. As our gps slowly counted down we arrived at GZ and found the cache. A few photos of our find and we started our walk back. We were able to spend some nice naked time looking at the animals and the antique items they had around the barn. The owners were very nice and we chatted for some time about several things and learned the lady had had a few articles published in a naturist magazine.

 

Just a fun time on a nice sunny day and caching naked. :D

Share this post


Link to post

If you are ever in the very southwestern corner of Utah, there is a geoart of a Kokopelli. 133 caches and no one around. I’ve been out there 5 times and never seen anyone. It is easy to avoid cactus and other pokey things.

 

GC29AB9, JD’s neither shady nor a lady

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, that is a great peaceful area. We were fortunate to find the road leading to the area and spent a couple of hours caching there. Yes, naked is best but did manage to get a thorn poke once. Hope we can get back to do more of the caches there. The ET Highway was another wonderful experience and we found several side roads to cache on.

 

We are heading to the Phoenix/Tucson area in January in hopes to find many more desolate places to cache. If you know of any cool caches please let us know. We are always looking for windmills, old towns and jails and unique scenery.

Share this post


Link to post

Well this group sure has died. Our love for naked caching sure hasn't. We now have a Jeep and it is taking us into some great country and no one around. There are caches and we are loving the freedom to cache naked.

 

The desert in Arizona was perfect weather for hiking "au natural" and being able to walk and have no one around was perfect.

 

We were out boating today and grabbed a cache(clothed, fisherman was very near GZ) then went to explore an small island. Being a weekday there was little boat traffic and we left our clothes in the boat and pretended to be Naked and Afraid as we explored the island. Don't know how they do it without shoes, no way are we going barefoot. Wish we could have hid a cache here but the government agencies are making it more difficult to hide them in our area. State and county are asking requiring permits and they take forever to get back to you if they even do.

 

Off to Alaska next month, that will complete finding caches in all 50 states and DC, and we will see what we find in Alaska. Will a bare meet a bear? :)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

×