+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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!!! Quote Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) 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 June 5, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool Quote Link to comment
+Keelmann And Cici Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+wiseye Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) 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 June 5, 2012 by bluenoserstoo Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+Planet Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 So someone placed a cache that was in violation of the guidelines and they got caught. Sorry, no sympathy from here. Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) 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 June 5, 2012 by bluenoserstoo Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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? Quote Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
MisterEFQ Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+Gitchee-Gummee Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) He used a nail..... the next uses a screw..... next comes along with a lag bolt..... the next cuts down the tree..... Where does it end? There is a line and he crossed the line. Man up! Edited June 5, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 WOW, drop the nail bit, the NAIL is NOT the point LOL!!!!!I was just using that cache as an example!!! Quote Link to comment
+Zop Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) WOW!!! Okay maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the nail in the tree. See post #16 Edited June 5, 2012 by bluenoserstoo Quote Link to comment
+Gitchee-Gummee Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) 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 June 5, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee Quote Link to comment
MisterEFQ Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) 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 June 5, 2012 by MisterEFQ Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) 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 June 5, 2012 by knowschad Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 The nail doesnt kill a tree unless its bunch copper nails. Quote Link to comment
MisterEFQ Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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". Quote Link to comment
cezanne Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) 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 June 5, 2012 by bluenoserstoo Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
MisterEFQ Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 All in all I have a good sense of humor and some of these comments are enjoyable.. Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 Although this thread is not going where I wanted it is still a good dicussion!!! Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+BBWolf+3Pigs Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Although this thread is not going where I wanted it is still a good dicussion!!! Really? As far as I can tell this discussion is going nowhere. Quote Link to comment
+dakboy Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 You best archive almost every night cache in the woods then as well. Fire tacks are just small nails, after all. Quote Link to comment
+Lady Loki Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Although this thread is not going where I wanted it is still a good dicussion!!! Once you release a thread into the wild, you really can't control where it goes. Much like a TB, I guess. Quote Link to comment
+bluenoserstoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 You best archive almost every night cache in the woods then as well. Fire tacks are just small nails, after all. good point Quote Link to comment
+ras_oscar Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 As has been mentioned above, there are ways to attach a container to a tree that do not violate the guidelines. Resecure the container and republish. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
cezanne Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) 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 June 5, 2012 by cezanne Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
cezanne Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) 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 June 5, 2012 by cezanne Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+BBWolf+3Pigs Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.