Jump to content

Geocaching guidelines (a load of bull)


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Recently a cache was placed, a beautiful well thought out cache, handcrafted field puzzle. It was nailed to a tree!!! Because somebody disliked the cache owner it was reported and archived by the reviewer. In our area there are few people that put out quality caches, most are micros in the forest or a lame container hidden in a stump.

It outrageous me that because of grondspeaks guidelines that a cache like this has to archived. What causes more damage, a field puzzle easily seen and fun to complete, or a micro hidden in the bush where 20 or 30 people tear appart the area in search of it. Sometimes common sense needs to apply to the rules. If every cache was cross examined to see if it follows the rules how many would pass.

 

Opinions, comments please!!!

Link to comment

They do not wish to list caches which leave a negative impression on land managers. It violates the defacement guidelines, sorry.

 

With that being said, I know of a few dozen caches using nails in trees. Most are harmless and creative, so nobody has reported them. However, there IS a cacher currently reporting all the ones they come into contact with, because they had one of theirs get archived..

 

In most cases a work around is possible and caches can be unarchived, so I wouldnt get too upset about it.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

The rules are there not so much to protect the tree, although that's part of it, but to ensure geocaching maintains a good relationship with land managers. Most public land managers won't allow anything like a nail in a tree, therefore it's against guidelines.

 

Sorry to hear a good cache was archived, but there's lots of ways to make good caches without guideline violations.

Link to comment

Fundamental Placement Guidelines

4

Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

5

Wildlife and the natural environment are not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching. Geocaches are placed so that plant and animal life are safe from both intentional and unintentional harm. In some regions geocaching activity may need to cease for portions of the year due to sensitivity of some species.

Link to comment

It's great that someone put out such a cool cache, we can all use more of them rather than lame micros in the bush caches. There are however better ways to put a cache in a tree. Depending on the cache container hang it with strong string or use plastic wire ties. I'm sure the CO can find a creative way to attach the cache or move it from the tree.

Good luck and cache on!

wiseye

Link to comment

Most caches violate the geocaching guidlines as hole. eg. follow the geotrail.... A geocache will eventally cause damage to an area.

 

Please note that "Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find."

 

This rule is almost impossible to follow. If someone were to analyze any of your caches and complain how many would be archived because of intentional or unintentional damage to an area. All it takes is one person to start policing your area and reporting caches and caches start getting archived.

Link to comment

This rule is almost impossible to follow. If someone were to analyze any of your caches and complain how many would be archived because of intentional or unintentional damage to an area. All it takes is one person to start policing your area and reporting caches and caches start getting archived.

 

None of them cause permanent damage. Typically geotrails disappear after 1 season of not being used. An area usually described as being "torn up", means that all of the rocks have been turned over, logs moved, and leaves shuffled around. But there is no permanent damage.

Link to comment

My point is the fact that the majority of caches placed don't meet the guidlines, but they are published anyway. "I'm pissed off at you or I don't like you, so I'm going to report your caches." Thats all it takes to destroy a small geocaching community, The fact is most people would rather search for a geocache than hide them. So when a person who creates quality caches is attacked like this it hurts the community as a whole. But there is no way to fight back we are at the mercy of the reviewers opinions.

Link to comment

This rule is almost impossible to follow. If someone were to analyze any of your caches and complain how many would be archived because of intentional or unintentional damage to an area. All it takes is one person to start policing your area and reporting caches and caches start getting archived.

 

None of them cause permanent damage. Typically geotrails disappear after 1 season of not being used. An area usually described as being "torn up", means that all of the rocks have been turned over, logs moved, and leaves shuffled around. But there is no permanent damage.

 

I agree but the same applies to the nail in the tree, once the cache is removed.

Edited by bluenoserstoo
Link to comment

None of them cause permanent damage. Typically geotrails disappear after 1 season of not being used. An area usually described as being "torn up", means that all of the rocks have been turned over, logs moved, and leaves shuffled around. But there is no permanent damage.

I agree but the same applies to the nail in the tree, once the cache is removed.

Not necessarily. If a copper nail is used, that's a very effective way to kill a tree. Also, the bark of a tree is it's protection against things like diseases. Piercing all the way through the bark is compromising the integrity of that protection, which can eventually lead to the death of the tree.

 

Regardless, as has been mentioned several times already, the guideline is geared more towards maintaining our collective reputation. If land managers find out some caches are nailed to trees, it's entirely possible that they may develop a negative view of geocaching and ban it on their lands.

Link to comment

If you say yes to one nail the next thing you know there are thousands of nails being hammered into the trees. And hundreds of angry land managers. People shouldn't take it to heart. It isn't that hard to rethink a cache hide.

As far as better ways to attach it to a tree, be prepared to go back out and loosen anything that wraps around a tree or branch and give it room to grow. That can do more damage and deformation than a nail.

Link to comment

None of them cause permanent damage. Typically geotrails disappear after 1 season of not being used. An area usually described as being "torn up", means that all of the rocks have been turned over, logs moved, and leaves shuffled around. But there is no permanent damage.

I agree but the same applies to the nail in the tree, once the cache is removed.

Not necessarily. If a copper nail is used, that's a very effective way to kill a tree. Also, the bark of a tree is it's protection against things like diseases. Piercing all the way through the bark is compromising the integrity of that protection, which can eventually lead to the death of the tree.

 

Regardless, as has been mentioned several times already, the guideline is geared more towards maintaining our collective reputation. If land managers find out some caches are nailed to trees, it's entirely possible that they may develop a negative view of geocaching and ban it on their lands.

 

Nobody said anything about a copper nail!! LOL You are are missing the point entirely. A cache nailed to a tree, a micro in the woods, they all cause damage to an area to some extent, therefore breaking the so called guidelines. YES!!! once the cache is removed the damage will repair itself. I'm not saying that its right or wrong. All I'm trying to say is the guidelines are not followed the majority time.

Edited by bluenoserstoo
Link to comment

Nobody said anything about a copper nail!! LOL You are are missing the point entirely.

I know a copper nail wasn't mentioned, I'm just pointing out that nails can do a lot of damage. Potentially much more than a few trampled plants.

 

Anyway, you're right, I must be missing the point. What exactly is the point of this discussion? Are you advocating the rewriting of the guidelines to allow damage, defacing, and destruction of property? Advocating the reporting and archival of all caches that violate the guidelines in any way? Or just venting?

Link to comment

The tree does not necessarily repair itself when the nail is removed, it causes diseases to enter and the inside to rot. Unless there is a chance someone will cut it down with a chainsaw, it's actually better to leave the nail in the tree once it is there.

 

Also what happens is that other cachers see it and copy the idea. Someone sees a nail in a common tree in the middle of nowhere so they then decide to nail trees in tiny parks. Next they may bore a hole in a 100 year old tree to hide a filmcan. This happened near me and the cache got archived for non maintenance...

 

Better yet, don't use any nails.

Link to comment

My point was the geocaching guidlines are not followed to a tee, most geocaches cause some damage to an area intentional or unintentional regardless of how the are placed, and if someone were to come in and start reporting caches out of spite, that were in violation of the guidelines, how many caches would be left. It is up to the reviewer to decide if the cache should be archived and that's where common sense rules must apply, not guideline rules. I'm not just talking about the cache nailed to a tree I'm talking about all caches. MOST DO NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES as outlined. Maybe I am just venting, but this is a situation that could happen to anyone and it has caused some damage to our small geocahing community and there is no way to stop it.

Link to comment

None of them cause permanent damage. Typically geotrails disappear after 1 season of not being used. An area usually described as being "torn up", means that all of the rocks have been turned over, logs moved, and leaves shuffled around. But there is no permanent damage.

I agree but the same applies to the nail in the tree, once the cache is removed.

Not necessarily. If a copper nail is used, that's a very effective way to kill a tree. Also, the bark of a tree is it's protection against things like diseases. Piercing all the way through the bark is compromising the integrity of that protection, which can eventually lead to the death of the tree.

 

Regardless, as has been mentioned several times already, the guideline is geared more towards maintaining our collective reputation. If land managers find out some caches are nailed to trees, it's entirely possible that they may develop a negative view of geocaching and ban it on their lands.

 

Nobody said anything about a copper nail!! LOL You are are missing the point entirely. A cache nailed to a tree, a micro in the woods, they all cause damage to an area to some extent, therefore breaking the so called guidelines. YES!!! once the cache is removed the damage will repair itself. I'm not saying that its right or wrong. All I'm trying to say is the guidelines are not followed the majority time.

 

You brought up the point he was addressing...........

 

Nails can and do damage trees.

Link to comment

Nobody said anything about a copper nail!! LOL You are are missing the point entirely.

I know a copper nail wasn't mentioned, I'm just pointing out that nails can do a lot of damage. Potentially much more than a few trampled plants.

 

Anyway, you're right, I must be missing the point. What exactly is the point of this discussion? Are you advocating the rewriting of the guidelines to allow damage, defacing, and destruction of property? Advocating the reporting and archival of all caches that violate the guidelines in any way? Or just venting?

And when a forest ranger wants to put up a sign what does he do? Nails it to a tree.

 

I really have a good laugh when folks bring up the defacing issue. A while back proud as a peacock Groundspeak announced their new video (Mountatain biking and Geocaching) prominently displayed is defacing a park structure. I pointed this out to them, the video is still up and the lackey said they will take more care in the future to make sure the videos comply with the guidelines. Far as I am concerned Groundspeak is very hypocritical when it comes to guidelines, we have to follow them and they can do as they wish.

Link to comment

Recently a cache was placed, a beautiful well thought out cache, handcrafted field puzzle. It was nailed to a tree!!! Because somebody disliked the cache owner it was reported and archived by the reviewer. In our area there are few people that put out quality caches, most are micros in the forest or a lame container hidden in a stump.

It outrageous me that because of grondspeaks guidelines that a cache like this has to archived. What causes more damage, a field puzzle easily seen and fun to complete, or a micro hidden in the bush where 20 or 30 people tear appart the area in search of it. Sometimes common sense needs to apply to the rules. If every cache was cross examined to see if it follows the rules how many would pass.

 

Opinions, comments please!!!

 

There are better ways of attaching a cache without damaging a tree. Many people do not know that the metals are toxic to some types of trees.

Link to comment

WOW, drop the nail bit, the NAIL is NOT the point LOL!!!!!I was just using that cache as an example!!!

You are absolutely correct..... the nail is NOT the point.

 

The point is the perception that other finders get from finding a cache nailed to a tree. A (good) percentage would take that as an OK to deface/injure/destroy property in order to place their hide.

 

Thereafter, property owners will refuse cache placement "because of the tree (or other property) defacement" that is associated with geocaching.

Edited by Gitchee-Gummee
Link to comment

WOW, drop the nail bit, the NAIL is NOT the point LOL!!!!!I was just using that cache as an example!!!

 

In the title it says: "A Nail in a tree".

 

And you basically just said they do not harm trees. When they can. So be prepared for people do respond.

Edited by MisterEFQ
Link to comment

WOW, drop the nail bit, the NAIL is NOT the point LOL!!!!!I was just using that cache as an example!!!

 

I can not agree with you more that it is ridiculous to think that a nail will damage a tree. See the Hungry Trees thread when you have time. I started that thread, so my position should be clear.

However...

 

it is not at all ridiculous to think that a nail will damage good will, and that is exactly what that guideline is all about. We actually had a community in my area that put a total ban on geocaching for (I'm guessing here) about two years, all because of one nail in one tree that was found by a park ranger. It took a lot of time, a lot of people, a lot of meetings, and finally a rather restrictive local geocaching policy before they allowed any more caches to be hidden in any of the city parks. And word spreads. It could well have ended up affecting other towns, the county, and even the state policies.

 

Perhaps in the example you cite, there actually were some hostile feelings that caused that cache to be reported. But if true, that is really the less important aspect of the situation. The bgger issue here is the potential of damage to local geocaching because of a nail in a tree.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Still talking about the nail in the tree. Not the point. The point is guidelines and how most caches would not meet them if someone started policing them. LOL

Welcome to the forum. I know what your point is, but most of the forum people in here dont see it. I feel sorry for them.

Link to comment

Still talking about the nail in the tree. Not the point. The point is guidelines and how most caches would not meet them if someone started policing them. LOL

 

The point is the nail. The sub-header for this thread, as well as your OP, state as much. That is why we are responding to that specific incident.

 

However, I totally disagree with your use of the word "most" in your sentence. I might allow "many", would certainly agree with "some".

Link to comment

And when a forest ranger wants to put up a sign what does he do? Nails it to a tree.

 

But hopefully with permission of the owner of the tree.

 

For me the key point with nails in tree is not about defacing, but about the fact that if such a nail happens to stay in the tree for whatever reason (caches gets lost, but nail stays there or whatever) and is overlooked it can cause major damage to saws in timber mills.

 

I do not know about the situation in the US, but in my country where the majority of geocaches in forest areas are placed without permission and where forestry is an important business sector, nails in trees to place geocaches is a topic that goes far beyond defacing.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The nail doesnt kill a tree unless its bunch copper nails.

 

How dare you talk about a nail in a tree in a thread about nails in a tree.

 

The topic is about guidelines, I named it A nail in a tree. In hindsite not a good name really.OOPS!! :(

Edited by bluenoserstoo
Link to comment

What causes more damage, a field puzzle easily seen and fun to complete, or a micro hidden in the bush where 20 or 30 people tear appart the area in search of it.

 

Opinions, comments please!!!

 

OK... THIS statement is probably more what you wanted to discuss than a nail in a tree, right?

 

Please don't forget the final sentence, though. When you ask for opinions around here, expect to get them.

Link to comment

Still talking about the nail in the tree. Not the point. The point is guidelines and how most caches would not meet them if someone started policing them. LOL

Welcome to the forum. I know what your point is, but most of the forum people in here dont see it. I feel sorry for them.

 

Ugh.

Link to comment

The nail doesnt kill a tree unless its bunch copper nails.

 

How dare you talk about a nail in a tree in a thread about nails in a tree.

 

The topic is about guidelines, I named it A nail in a tree. In hindsite not a good name really.OOPS!! :(

 

Well, you certainly nailed that one. Hit it right square on the head, yes indeedy. Keep hammering it in and we'll get the point eventually.

Link to comment

Still talking about the nail in the tree. Not the point. The point is guidelines and how most caches would not meet them if someone started policing them. LOL

 

I suspect that if a cache is placed and there is resultant damage to the plant life around it (especially if said plant life is rare or endangered) the proprty owner/manager will also call to have the cache archvied, so the same reason as something that defaces a tree/building/structure.

 

However, a cache in the middle of the woods, under a rock (in a large glacial erratic field) will likely not adversely impact the surroundings.

Link to comment

None of them cause permanent damage. Typically geotrails disappear after 1 season of not being used. An area usually described as being "torn up", means that all of the rocks have been turned over, logs moved, and leaves shuffled around. But there is no permanent damage.

I agree but the same applies to the nail in the tree, once the cache is removed.

Not necessarily. If a copper nail is used, that's a very effective way to kill a tree. Also, the bark of a tree is it's protection against things like diseases. Piercing all the way through the bark is compromising the integrity of that protection, which can eventually lead to the death of the tree.

 

Regardless, as has been mentioned several times already, the guideline is geared more towards maintaining our collective reputation. If land managers find out some caches are nailed to trees, it's entirely possible that they may develop a negative view of geocaching and ban it on their lands.

 

Nobody said anything about a copper nail!! LOL You are are missing the point entirely. A cache nailed to a tree, a micro in the woods, they all cause damage to an area to some extent, therefore breaking the so called guidelines. YES!!! once the cache is removed the damage will repair itself. I'm not saying that its right or wrong. All I'm trying to say is the guidelines are not followed the majority time.

 

Not sure where you get that. In 10 plus years I've had to report maybe a dozen guideline violations that I encountered in the field. The overwhelming majority of caches I've found complied with the guidelines as do all of the 320+ caches I've hidden.

Link to comment

Not sure where you get that. In 10 plus years I've had to report maybe a dozen guideline violations that I encountered in the field. The overwhelming majority of caches I've found complied with the guidelines as do all of the 320+ caches I've hidden.

 

Maybe the situation differs from country to country and region to region?

 

The vast majority of caches I have visited are placed without permission. You will not notice that when being in the field, however.

I'm really impressed by the way that you asked 320+ for permission and received positive answers.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'm really impressed by the way that you asked 320+ for permission and received positive answers.

You know as well as any of us that not every cache needs explicit permission.

 

Have you checked the current version of the guidelines? (They differ from the old version under which I have hidden my caches.) They now talk of permission even for caches on public ground.

Of course this is just what is written there and not what happens in practice, but that is exactly one of the issues with the guidelines.

See

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

point 2 states

"You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."

 

All my caches are at location which the public is allowed to enter, but leaving containers is not allowed there (that's considered as littering).

So I would need permission and I have none and do in most cases not even know who owns the property. Moreover, I could hardly imagine cachers addressing the administration of the city where I live and ask for permissions to place geocaches several times per week. This definitely would not work.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'm really impressed by the way that you asked 320+ for permission and received positive answers.

You know as well as any of us that not every cache needs explicit permission.

 

Have you checked the current version of the guidelines? (They differ from the old version under which I have hidden my caches.) They now talk of permission even for caches on public ground.

Of course this is just what is written there and not what happens in practice, but that is exactly one of the issues with the guidelines.

See

http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx

point 2 states

"You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."

I don't see how that guideline changes anything in regards to impied permission. I assure them that I have the landowner's implied permission.

Link to comment

They now talk of permission even for caches on public ground.

Of course this is just what is written there and not what happens in practice, but that is exactly one of the issues with the guidelines.

 

...

 

"You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."

 

RI State Wildlife Management Areas and State Parks implicitly allow geocaching. Permission is not requried for each and every one of them. So I can 100% assure Groundspeak that I have permission to hide caches on those properties.

Link to comment

Have you checked the current version of the guidelines? (They differ from the old version under which I have hidden my caches.) They now talk of permission even for caches on public ground.

Of course this is just what is written there and not what happens in practice, but that is exactly one of the issues with the guidelines.

See

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

point 2 states

"You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."

That guideline was recently reworded, but the meaning is still the same. It doesn't require that you acquire written permission for each and every cache. As an example, a city may produce a blanket geocaching policy that allows the hiding of geocaches in city parks if they follow some criteria. In cases such as that, there's no need to get written permission for each specific cache.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...