suitability of cache locations

[+Deepdiggingmole]

Very recently (within the last week) two caches have been published near us and both have been placed either on or very near dog poo bins - both caches make mention of this in the description or hint with very little else and certainly with no other feature in the area (no I am corrected as I type this - one is one of the church micro series)

When a cache is reviewed - apart from checking to see if the location is permissible do the reviewers check the content of the description and decide whether in fact the placement is suitable for caching purposes

I would suggest placing a cache (magnetic) on to a dog poo bin is neither suitable or of any interest - it used to be that in placing caches the owner sent people to locations that had some interest factor or took them on some sort of trail that as a whole was satisfying - I, and I am sure many others would not want to go hunting around dog poo bins and certainly not if as a family hunt.

I am aware that many caches are hidden in unsuitable places (wasteland with much rubbish around for example) where this is not mentioned in the description or hint and so reviewers would not be aware - but the logs make mention of the fact

so my query is how much of the location is taken into account particularly if it is obvious from the description

[+S&G.Davison]

Well Said Deepdiggingmole..

 

We have found one or two and given up on a fair few caches which have been placed (with approval) in the most disgusting places .. whereas ones in interesting places (as per your post intent) because they sit on "National Trust / Some how Protected / Some Other Government Owner land / Some strange landowner rules" requires cachers to re position or go through red tape galore to get approval ... (based on us trying to get some old archived ones re set up .. the "new rules" apply to unarchiving caches, which to be honest they where too rigorous and we gave up on and left archived, to the loss of the greater community IMHO)

 

I can see how Dog Poos bins Caches get set up as they are easy to set up !

 

My new plan is take our old archived caches and stick them on some suitable dog poo bins as to be honest we all know its about the numbers not the quality !

Edited August 29, 2011 by S&G.Davison

[+Happy Humphrey]

I can't see what a reviewer could do about it. In most peoples' opinions a dog poo bin isn't appropriate but if you don't fancy searching there you can see it mentioned in the description, ignore it and no harm done. Why should a reviewer decide that you can't even be given the choice? Reviewers have never been arbiters of quality, just guidelines.

 

It would be much worse if you hid a cache somewhere and submitted the description only to have a reviewer refuse the listing on the basis that the location isn't the sort of place he likes. So perhaps he's had enough of caches in ivy. Or thinks that a cache next to the sewage works sounds a bit smelly so refuses it. Or is against drinking and driving so refuses a cache placed in a pub car park.

Where would you draw the line?

 

In my opinion such a cache will attract few visitors anyway and no favourites so will soon get abandoned.

[+Hawkins2.5]

Well Said Deepdiggingmole..

 

My new plan is take our old archived caches and stick them on some suitable dog poo bins as to be honest we all know its about the numbers not the quality !

 

For some people it is about numbers, for others it is about quality, for some it may be a bit of both. Personally I think dog poo bin hides are revolting and if I saw it mentioned on a cache page then I would ignore it and not waste any more time on that cache. However others may disagree and that's their prerogative. In my opinion there should be a rule against it as it is pretty unhygienic but again, I'm sure there will be people ready with a counter argument. At the end of the day I would be grateful that they have put it on the cache page so that I don't have to waste my time on them.

[+JUSTHEJOB]

Good point, i wouldnt want to seach for a cache on a dog bin, yuk!

[+thehoomer]

We have one near us (GC135MH) and I must admit, this type of hide is not in my top ten.

The fact that it is on a dog pooh bin is abhorrent enough but the CO actually states in the text, that all the negative comments are from female cachers - how on earth does the CO know that? It's always tickled me that .

[+Loony Londo]

Good point, i wouldnt want to seach for a cache on a dog bin, yuk!

May be the GCGB could agree caches are not to be placed on Dog Poo bins and issue such a guide line to reviwers in the United Kingdom.

[+The Blorenges]

I'm sure the reviewers look at many cache submissions and think to themselves, "Why on earth have they chosen to put a cache there?" but if it meets the Guidelines then it gets published.

 

I think it's up to other cachers to make their feelings about such locations known to the cache owner - politely but clearly. It does no good for any cacher to go to such a location, see where the cache is, hold their nose, log it as Found and then come to this forum to complain about it.

 

I'd suggest that a better course of action on finding such a cache (or any other cache that you consider to be A Bad Idea) would be not to log it as a Find but to simply write a Note log on the cache page e.g. "We found the cache but it is in a very unpleasant spot and we have chosen not to log it as a Find." I know of one or two cachers who have started doing this recently - Yes, maybe their Note gets deleted rather quickly but at least they're getting the message across to the CO!

 

MrsB

[+thehoomer]

I'm sure the reviewers look at many cache submissions and think to themselves, "Why on earth have they chosen to put a cache there?" but if it meets the Guidelines then it gets published.

 

I think it's up to other cachers to make their feelings about such locations known to the cache owner - politely but clearly. It does no good for any cacher to go to such a location, see where the cache is, hold their nose, log it as Found and then come to this forum to complain about it.

 

I'd suggest that a better course of action on finding such a cache (or any other cache that you consider to be A Bad Idea) would be not to log it as a Find but to simply write a Note log on the cache page e.g. "We found the cache but it is in a very unpleasant spot and we have chosen not to log it as a Find." I know of one or two cachers who have started doing this recently - Yes, maybe their Note gets deleted rather quickly but at least they're getting the message across to the CO!

 

MrsB

Completely agree and I have said this before. We found the cache I mentioned in our early caching days and logged it as found. Nowadays though, if we don't agree with a hide, we always post a note instead of a 'found'. These are often in dry stone walls but we also don't agree with caches on life saving devices (near water) either.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

I can't see what a reviewer could do about it. In most peoples' opinions a dog poo bin isn't appropriate but if you don't fancy searching there you can see it mentioned in the description, ignore it and no harm done. Why should a reviewer decide that you can't even be given the choice? Reviewers have never been arbiters of quality, just guidelines.

 

I agree with what you have said HH - but my point was - where it was obvious that the cache location would be unsuitable (and I dont think there will be many out there who would accept the poobin as suitable) then could the reviewer point this out to the cache owner prior to publication and if a more suitable hide is found then it could be published - surely a reviewer can have judgement enough to deal with this

[+Happy Humphrey]

I can't see what a reviewer could do about it. In most peoples' opinions a dog poo bin isn't appropriate but if you don't fancy searching there you can see it mentioned in the description, ignore it and no harm done. Why should a reviewer decide that you can't even be given the choice? Reviewers have never been arbiters of quality, just guidelines.

 

I agree with what you have said HH - but my point was - where it was obvious that the cache location would be unsuitable (and I dont think there will be many out there who would accept the poobin as suitable) then could the reviewer point this out to the cache owner prior to publication and if a more suitable hide is found then it could be published - surely a reviewer can have judgement enough to deal with this

I can just about accept that where the listing says "attached to the dog poo bin" the reviewer might be able to point to some new guideline that says "no dog poo bins due to hygiene concerns" (if there was such a guideline). That would cover the case where the cache listing states this specifically, but not those where it's not actually mentioned (you could just say, for instance, "close to the dog picture").

 

But as I said before...where would you draw the line? Who defines "unsuitable"? What about "in the rotting log", which is another place that many people might not like searching? Would we really want a new list of things to check before submitting a cache listing?

 

I'd rather reviewers stick strictly to enforcing guidelines and keep well away from cache quality judgement.

 

As Graculus points out above, there are ways of us letting the cache owner know that it's a poor hide.

I would post a DNF saying that I saw the cache (or hide) but didn't want to touch it.

[+Graculus]

We do read descriptions and hints and the notes cache owners write for us when submitting the cache. We also use Google maps and Street view to check locations too (allowing for the fact those resources are not always up to date - but they help). We'll query caches on or near playgrounds or schools where there are kids for fairly obvious reasons. Similarly caches near military or police buildings.... the list is quite long! But 'unsavory' locations are a different matter. If the cache is in an obvious litter filled layby it would get published! If the notes/description said the area was frequented by drunks/drug users and there was dangerous litter we'd probably query that one and not publish it. Dog poo bins? Not had that many to review but we usually warn people about the health hazards. However if an owner tells us it is a really great dog poo bin that deserves a cache then we'd probably publish it. It would be up to finders to decide whether to look for it or not and write a suitable (polite) log.

 

We can't always tell where caches are located. If the description is a bit short on words and there is no hint or note to us giving any indication of the location and it otherwise meets the guidelines then it would be published.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

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

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+Ant89]

As a dog owner these caches sound great, If I'm ever caching in that area I'll know these caches will lead me to a place where I can dispose of my dogs waste

[+uktim]

Well Said Deepdiggingmole..

 

My new plan is take our old archived caches and stick them on some suitable dog poo bins as to be honest we all know its about the numbers not the quality !

 

For some people it is about numbers, for others it is about quality, for some it may be a bit of both. Personally I think dog poo bin hides are revolting and if I saw it mentioned on a cache page then I would ignore it and not waste any more time on that cache. However others may disagree and that's their prerogative. In my opinion there should be a rule against it as it is pretty unhygienic but again, I'm sure there will be people ready with a counter argument. At the end of the day I would be grateful that they have put it on the cache page so that I don't have to waste my time on them.

 

Surely a more realistic sense of perspective is required? If the cache was concealed in the bottom of the bin and you had to sift through the contents then it would be unhygienic. If it's on the outside it's hardly any less hygienic than the average signpost. We almost certainly come into contact with a worse threats whilst caching in open countryside without even realising it.

 

I'd suggest that those with over delicate sensibilities should walk on by and let others make their own judgement.

[+Hawkins2.5]

I'd suggest that those with over delicate sensibilities should walk on by and let others make their own judgement.

 

Isn't that what I was saying? It is certainly the point I was trying to make. I don't like it, IMHO it is not very hygienic, other people will disagree so I'll just leave it alone and be grateful for the prior knowledge.

 

EDIT: P.S. I'm sure some dog poo bins are not too bad if people dispose of their dog waste properly. I have had the unfortunate experience of a dog poo bin where this was not the case!

Edited August 30, 2011 by Hawkins2

[Deceangi]

Can I ask the OP, if he contacted the Cache Owner about the Location of the one on the Bin? Maybe the Reviewer had raised the issue of the location, and the person still decided that he/she wanted the cache published in that location.

 

So due diligence could have been done by the Reviewer, before Publication.

 

Deci

[+Loony Londo]

As a dog owner these caches sound great, If I'm ever caching in that area I'll know these caches will lead me to a place where I can dispose of my dogs waste

 

Perhaps the answer is the cache owner should place the cache in a clean location and put a note in the cache description there is a bin for canine waste near by.

However there never seems to be any shortage of dog waste bins however litter bins seem to be in short supply . However unforuntalely people do not take their rubbish home but jus t hide it in bushes as I discovered while caching in the Lee Valley last Sunday.

 

I ended up doing a mini Cito with a large bag of rubbish I could not disposed of in a bin so I had to leave it away with me!

[team tisri]

In my opinion there should be a rule against it as it is pretty unhygienic but again, I'm sure there will be people ready with a counter argument.

 

In fairness, although a dog poo bin does have obvious hygiene reasons there are also potential hygiene issues with a large box hidden under a fallen tree in the forest. Anything below about 6" above ground has potentially been used as a canine latrine, not to mention all the other forest creatures that have their own bodily functions to perform (and don't have anyone to pick up the results afterwards)

[GerritS]

As a dog owner these caches sound great, If I'm ever caching in that area I'll know these caches will lead me to a place where I can dispose of my dogs waste

 

As an X dog owner I can agree with that being a usefull series... With the added bonus at least you are not likely to find the unwanted plastic bag/ paper bag/ tissue paper wrapped one lurking in the bushes instead of the cache!

 

Also understand how these get set up not interesting, hides presently trying to set up a cache on a structure in a Natural England SSSI and in a national park... I am finding out more about how these institutions work by the day...

 

Presently know one knows who ones the structure! Its on a foot path and kids climb on it every day. Can some not just say Oh ok then... WHat a waste of tax payers money...

[+Alfiegeorge]

 

(snip)

 

However if an owner tells us it is a really great dog poo bin that deserves a cache then we'd probably publish it.

 

(snip)

 

 

Well, that gave me a chuckle this morning.

[+t.a.folk]

Oooops.No posting intended .

I was only reading this page and must have touched something by mistakes

Edited September 2, 2011 by t.a.folk

[+Happy Humphrey]

As an X dog owner I can agree with that being a usefull series... With the added bonus at least you are not likely to find the unwanted plastic bag/ paper bag/ tissue paper wrapped one lurking in the bushes instead of the cache!

 

Also understand how these get set up not interesting, hides presently trying to set up a cache on a structure in a Natural England SSSI and in a national park... I am finding out more about how these institutions work by the day...

 

Presently know one knows who ones the structure! Its on a foot path and kids climb on it every day. Can some not just say Oh ok then... WHat a waste of tax payers money...

Remember that if the dog poo bin is in an SSSI then you'll have to demonstrate that permission has been officially given to clamp a nano to it. A note should be left in the nano to confirm the names of the permission granters. The container should also be clearly marked, both with the standard geocaching text and the Natural England logo.

 

It will probably be as well to get this permission renewed each year in case of staff changes, and a site meeting held to ensure that the cacher who visited the bin that year hasn't had an adverse impact on the environment.

 

Also, it could be worth getting the police involved in case someone reports suspicious activity at the bin and the flying squad are buzzed in. We don't want to hear of dog poo bins being destroyed with controlled explosions, do we?

[+Bear and Ragged]

We don't want to hear of dog poo bins being destroyed with controlled explosions, do we?

Crumbs, no. There'd be stuff all over the place!

What a smell!

 

However, the clue could be changed to 'Follow your nose...'

[+drsolly]

Oooops.No posting intended .

I was only reading this page and must have touched something by mistakes

 

Now wash your hands please.

[GerritS]

Also understand how these get set up not interesting, hides presently trying to set up a cache on a structure in a Natural England SSSI and in a national park... I am finding out more about how these institutions work by the day...

 

Presently know one knows who ones the structure! Its on a foot path and kids climb on it every day. Can some not just say Oh ok then... WHat a waste of tax payers money...

 

I think I have given up on this one one or two polite reminders to the Landowner, SSSI and English Nature (I think was the third). They seem to have no problems with the cache, they just do not known who owns the structure in the SSSI or on there land!

 

Cannot blame them they probably have more important things to do, than worry about a cache.

 

Think I might change the cache type and put a discreet 1" square sticky label there

 

Have just received my warning that the New Forest has its 150th cache so before too long mine will be up for archive, when it does I doubt I will replace it.

 

I now understand why caches are increasingly stuck on the back of road signs, dog bins and other less imaginative places. Its so difficult to place one any where else..

Edited October 26, 2011 by GerritS

[+t.a.folk]

Have just received my warning that the New Forest has its 150th cache so before too long mine will be up for archive, when it does I doubt I will replace it.

 

I now understand why caches are increasingly stuck on the back of road signs, dog bins and other less imaginative places. Its so difficult to place one any where else..

 

Hopefully for you ,rather than just going by age of cache, the first caches to be archived under the 150 rule will caches owned by people who haven't "logged on" to their account for ages .

[+Bear and Ragged]

Have just received my warning that the New Forest has its 150th cache so before too long mine will be up for archive, when it does I doubt I will replace it.

 

I now understand why caches are increasingly stuck on the back of road signs, dog bins and other less imaginative places. Its so difficult to place one any where else..

 

Hopefully for you ,rather than just going by age of cache, the first caches to be archived under the 150 rule will caches owned by people who haven't "logged on" to their account for ages .

+1

And isn't in need of maintenance...