Geocaching guidelines (a load of bull)

[cezanne]

Are there any numbers of how large is the proportion of forest and mountain areas in the US that are located in parks or have a land manager in comparison to forest and mountain areas owned by private persons just like you and me? Somehow all of the above seems to suggest that the latter case does not occur very often and probably only for small areas, or do also private people like farmers employ land managers?

About 58% of U.S. forests are privately owned. The federal government owns 33%, states own 8%, and local governments own 1%. About 81% of Austrian forests are privately owned and 19% are public.

 

Thank you for your helpful answer. As Austria is regarded, the situation differs from region to region. In my area the proportion is even more skewed w.r.t private and the state also has a tendency to sell further areas.

 

Anyway, I'd like to know more about the 58% - privately owned US forest areas. Private can mean a lot.

People write mainly about all sorts of parks and land managers, geocaching policies etc. So that made me wonder who common it is that a rather small forest is split up so that maybe 20 or even private people/families (not organisations, associations, monasteries, churches etc) own parts of it.

 

When I walk through a forest, I typically do not know who owns which part of the forest and it is very cumbersome to find out who is the owner.

 

Somehow what is written in all these threads on permission makes me believe that this research for who owns a piece of land is easier in the US. Am I right?

If so, how does it work (it is obvious for me for city parks, national parks etc if they are shown on maps, but not for the remaining cases).

 

Well I know of a lot land that is not "managed" by anyone but I have never seen any land not owned by anyone.....again I would be highly upset accidentally trespassing on someone's land.

 

Trespassing is a matter that is very complex. For example, in my country when forest areas and mountain areas above the height where tree grows (tree line) are regarded, everyone is allowed to enter these areas on foot for recreation purposes regardless of who owns the land and regardless of whether the property owner likes this. The only exceptions are environmental protection areas (there one needs to stay on marked trails) and limited probihited areas due to forestry works or game reserves. Nearly every country in Europe has its own rules - there are e.g. countries where it is not allowed to leave trails in the forest (for example, in Belgium). In Scandinavia, however, the freedom is larger than in Austria.

 

In Austria property owners and to a lesser degree forest rangers (sometimes these two groups overlap) would be the ones upset the most with nails in trees if they become aware of it.

That's why I was surprised that the postings above mainly because park staff and land managers appear to play the major role in this US-based discussion.

 

Cezanne

[MisterEFQ]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

[+The A-Team]

...

That's why I was surprised that the postings above mainly because park staff and land managers appear to play the major role in this US-based discussion.

Just to be clear, the cache in question is in Canada, but the permission matters are similar to the US. Some numbers on forest ownership in Canada from a quick Google search:

-Nearly half of Canada is covered by forest, accounting for 10% of the world's forests.

-94% of Canada's forests are publicly owned. 6% is privately owned.

-23% are owned by the federal government (national), and 71% are owned by provincial governments.

[cezanne]

If I go caching on private property I assume I have permission, if I found out that isn't the case I would contact the local reviewer and attempt to have all of that c/o caches archived, it's bad practice to not ask permission, I have heard of several people being ran off by shot-gun. I think most geocaching problems arise from lazy c/o's rather then muggles, reviewers, and cachers.

 

As I have explained in another post, the legal situation differs from country to country.

 

Of course all my caches are at locations which everyone is allowed to enter (this permission is implied by Austrian law) and allowed to search for caches (this does not apply permission to leave containers as they are litter).

Moreover, it is not common in my country to own shot guns and to use them as a threat to people regardless of what they might have done.

 

The fact that the big majority of European cachers does not have permission for their cache placements is not related to European cachers being lazier or less considerate than their North-American counterparts. The reasons are complex, but the predominant one is that there exists no practicable procedure for obtaining permission in most areas except knowing the property owner by chance (like if it is your neighbour). A small farmer who owns a small forset area or a pasture and who has to work all day long to be able to survive at all in this globalized world that also influences the life of small farmers considerably, has better things to do than being contacted by strange people who want to hide plastic containers to enjoy their leisure time which is almost non-existent for these farmers.

Several years a colleague of mine asked a local farmer known to him whether he could hide a cache in the forest which belongs to that farmer and the farmer elieved that this was going to be a either a silly joke or a temporary birthday present for a child. All efforts of explanation did not help. Actually, I do not even think that someone could obtain official permission by my city to hide a geocache somewhere on the city's grounds. The clerks in the town hall would be hopelessly overchallenged with such requests. There might be geocaching policies in the US, there are no geocaching policies in Austria.

 

 

Cezanne

[+The A-Team]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

[cezanne]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

 

I guess you are allowed to do that, but that Groundspeak and the more rigourous cachers might prefer if no nails are used as

many cachers follow the examples of others and they might not know that the tree is owned by the hider and use nails

in trees not owned.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 6, 2012 by cezanne

[cezanne]

...

That's why I was surprised that the postings above mainly because park staff and land managers appear to play the major role in this US-based discussion.

Just to be clear, the cache in question is in Canada, but the permission matters are similar to the US. Some numbers on forest ownership in Canada from a quick Google search:

-Nearly half of Canada is covered by forest, accounting for 10% of the world's forests.

-94% of Canada's forests are publicly owned. 6% is privately owned.

-23% are owned by the federal government (national), and 71% are owned by provincial governments.

 

Thanks - I should have checked where the cache is located myself. Anyway, thanks for the interesting numbers. It's sounds like paradise that such a huge percentage is publicly owned.

 

Cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

When I walk through a forest, I typically do not know who owns which part of the forest and it is very cumbersome to find out who is the owner.

 

Somehow what is written in all these threads on permission makes me believe that this research for who owns a piece of land is easier in the US. Am I right? If so, how does it work (it is obvious for me for city parks, national parks etc if they are shown on maps, but not for the remaining cases).

In North America, I'd guess well over 90% of forest caches are placed in public forests, where the land manager usually is obvious. For privately owned land, many local jurisdictions have websites that allow one to find the owner reasonably easily.

 

I've wanted to place a couple caches in locations where I didn't know who owned the land. I simply went to the nearest home and knocked on the door. If they didn't own the property, then they knew who did.

[+Dan2099]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

[cezanne]

When I walk through a forest, I typically do not know who owns which part of the forest and it is very cumbersome to find out who is the owner.

 

Somehow what is written in all these threads on permission makes me believe that this research for who owns a piece of land is easier in the US. Am I right? If so, how does it work (it is obvious for me for city parks, national parks etc if they are shown on maps, but not for the remaining cases).

In North America, I'd guess well over 90% of forest caches are placed in public forests, where the land manager usually is obvious. For privately owned land, many local jurisdictions have websites that allow one to find the owner reasonably easily.

 

Ok, that sounds indeed a lot easier to handle and explains why having permission is so much more common in North America than in Europe.

In my area the vast majority of forest areas is privately owned and in order to find out the property owner

one needs to visit an office with limited opening times and pay per request. (Fopr certain type of requests, there also exist online systems, but again each request has to be paid for and I do not think that these systems work with GPS coordinates and pastures and forests do not have addresses).

 

I've wanted to place a couple caches in locations where I didn't know who owned the land. I simply went to the nearest home and knocked on the door. If they didn't own the property, then they knew who did.

 

That nearest home can be several kilometers away and I guess I would not even manage to describe the location I have in mind with high enough precision and the people there usually will not have any use for GPS coordinates. (It even happens that authorities when informed about a potentially dangerous grenade from WW II are fine with GPS coordinates and ask for people to accompany them to the location.)

 

In the forests around my town it can easily happen that by moving 200m I end up in areas owned by three different people.

It also might happen that an area which used to belong to the city, got sold a few months or even weeks ago and I have no chance to become aware of that if forest areas are concerned as the new owner has to allow access as well, so there will also be no signs (except the special case when the property owner is not respecting the law which can happen like in the case of a local mountain which no one can reach without the property owner's will due to a fence he erected in order to protest against certain Austrian laws - there even exists a cache there which is now unreachable.).

 

This means that even in the rare case that someone has obtained permission from the old owner, after a change the cache will be still there and in most cases the cache hider will not get informed about the owner change. The same will happen to the new property owner.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 6, 2012 by cezanne

[Pup Patrol]

...

That's why I was surprised that the postings above mainly because park staff and land managers appear to play the major role in this US-based discussion.

Just to be clear, the cache in question is in Canada, but the permission matters are similar to the US. Some numbers on forest ownership in Canada from a quick Google search:

-Nearly half of Canada is covered by forest, accounting for 10% of the world's forests.

-94% of Canada's forests are publicly owned. 6% is privately owned.

-23% are owned by the federal government (national), and 71% are owned by provincial governments.

 

Thanks - I should have checked where the cache is located myself. Anyway, thanks for the interesting numbers. It's sounds like paradise that such a huge percentage is publicly owned.

 

Cezanne

 

Numbers don't tell the whole story. They're just numbers/statistics. Once one starts to get truly involved in the layers of ownership/management/leaseholds, etc., it gets rather more complicated.

 

As for the original problem of a cache nailed to a tree...it seems like there is a simple solution or two that can be implemented. Seems like this is being blown out of proportion, if the cache owner would just take a few minutes to implement one.

 

It seems to me that the true problem lies with the personal issues between some of the locals. That's sad.

 

 

B.

[+The A-Team]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

[cezanne]

 

Thanks - I should have checked where the cache is located myself. Anyway, thanks for the interesting numbers. It's sounds like paradise that such a huge percentage is publicly owned.

 

 

Numbers don't tell the whole story. They're just numbers/statistics. Once one starts to get truly involved in the layers of ownership/management/leaseholds, etc., it gets rather more complicated.

 

I agree with you, but still the situation is more involved here and the huge proportion of privately owned forest areas causes many problems beyond geocaching which of are of much more importance than a game like geocaching.

 

 

As for the original problem of a cache nailed to a tree...it seems like there is a simple solution or two that can be implemented. Seems like this is being blown out of proportion, if the cache owner would just take a few minutes to implement one.

 

I agree again with you. My comments have not been motivated by the nail example, but by the comments about guideline enforcement in general. I need to admit that I feel bad each time I read some parts of the guidelines because I know that if one really enforced the guidelines in the manner they are stated, the vast majority of caches in German speaking countries (and several other European countries as well) would not exist and actually geocaching would not exist at all in the form we know it today.

 

I do not feel very comfortable with the point of view that some parts of the guidelines are the ones to follow and the other ones can be ignored in some areas and are there just for Groundspeak to be on the safe side. However, this stance kind of serves as basis for most geocaching activities in many European countries.

 

Cezanne

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

After you define damage, deface, or destroy, you must find out if the Land owner agrees with your assessment, before you can flat out say NO. If the property owner does not see a nail in his tree as damaging or defacing or destroying the tree, then You are left with The land/property owner having the last say. He owns the property and has given his permission for the cache. Of course the reviewer can deny the cache if he knows about the nail, but with the explicit permission, does he have the right to deny the cache?

 

John

[+Dan2099]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

As I said before on my farm we have used a tree as a fence post instead of cutting down the tree, nails and barbwire 5 strands at a time...it causes no damage to a tree, it simply grows around it. This seems to be yet another rule people interpret different ways.

[knowschad]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

As I said before on my farm we have used a tree as a fence post instead of cutting down the tree, nails and barbwire 5 strands at a time...it causes no damage to a tree, it simply grows around it. This seems to be yet another rule people interpret different ways.

 

Do we need to use bolded capital letters? Harming the tree has no bearing on it. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. Most of us are in 100% agreement with you there. I've seen trees grown around all sorts of metallic items.

[+Gustav129]

What if the nail was already in the tree?.......

[knowschad]

What if the nail was already in the tree?.......

Did the land manager know about it beforehand? Remember, this is about the land manager's perception, not about harming trees. If the land manager thinks that you put the nail there, it, in effect, is the same as if you had.

[+Cool Cow Cachers]

The point is guidelines and how most caches would not meet them if someone started policing them. LOL

That would put an end to LPCs and GRCs. I'd be surprised to learn if there is a single one of either on the planet with the "the landowner's and/or land manager's permission" to be placed there.

[+Dan2099]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

As I said before on my farm we have used a tree as a fence post instead of cutting down the tree, nails and barbwire 5 strands at a time...it causes no damage to a tree, it simply grows around it. This seems to be yet another rule people interpret different ways.

 

Do we need to use bolded capital letters? Harming the tree has no bearing on it. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. Most of us are in 100% agreement with you there. I've seen trees grown around all sorts of metallic items.

 

DO WE NEED CAPITAL LETTERS? We were talking about a different subject, I suggest trying to keep up with the subject before posting about it.

[knowschad]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

As I said before on my farm we have used a tree as a fence post instead of cutting down the tree, nails and barbwire 5 strands at a time...it causes no damage to a tree, it simply grows around it. This seems to be yet another rule people interpret different ways.

 

Do we need to use bolded capital letters? Harming the tree has no bearing on it. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. Most of us are in 100% agreement with you there. I've seen trees grown around all sorts of metallic items.

 

DO WE NEED CAPITAL LETTERS? We were talking about a different subject, I suggest trying to keep up with the subject before posting about it.

 

You are talking about damage to a tree, no?

 

it causes no damage to a tree, it simply grows around it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Since nobody has defined "land manager" in response to Cezannes query I'll take a stab at it.

 

Here's how I see it.

 

I define land manager rather loosely. For land that is privately owned, to me, the property owner is the land manager. It can get a bit unclear who the land manager is when the property is rented or leased. The renter may be find with a cache on the property owner my not, or vice versa.

 

For publicly owned land such as city/town/state/national parks there would likely always be some person or group that sets the policy for public use of that policy and that person or persons would be the land manager.

 

It also becomes unclear when a business 9r business or university is on the property. The property may be privately owned but "somebody" set the policy regarding publicly access (ie, use of a parking lot).

 

However, even in a case where a land manager explicitly grants permission to place a cache, rarely is that person the one that is going discover the the cache, note damage or defacement to the property, or notice a geocacher searching around the area and "acting suspicious".

 

So even on publicly owned land, with specific permission to place a cache, there's a chance that someone from the public might notice someone searching in the bushes and *they* are not going to know anything about a cache, and whether permission has been obtained.

[+Dan2099]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

As I said before on my farm we have used a tree as a fence post instead of cutting down the tree, nails and barbwire 5 strands at a time...it causes no damage to a tree, it simply grows around it. This seems to be yet another rule people interpret different ways.

 

Do we need to use bolded capital letters? Harming the tree has no bearing on it. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. Most of us are in 100% agreement with you there. I've seen trees grown around all sorts of metallic items.

 

DO WE NEED CAPITAL LETTERS? We were talking about a different subject, I suggest trying to keep up with the subject before posting about it.

 

You are talking about damage to a tree, no?

 

it causes no damage to a tree, it simply grows around it.

 

An above poster asked if he could place a nail in his own tree,,,,A team said no I asked to see the rule....he pointed to no damaging....I responded that a nail doesn't.

[+The A-Team]

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

As I said before on my farm we have used a tree as a fence post instead of cutting down the tree, nails and barbwire 5 strands at a time...it causes no damage to a tree, it simply grows around it. This seems to be yet another rule people interpret different ways.

I've bolded the relevant part in the above quoted guideline. If you put a nail into your tree years ago before you started caching, then by all means use it for a cache, but it may still appear to someone else that you've put it in expressly for your cache. If you put a nail into a tree as a means of hiding a cache, that runs afoul of the above guideline because you're altering property. Again, to repeat what has been said throughout this topic, the damage to the tree isn't what we're talking about here, it's the perception of land managers, other cachers, and the general public. Or would you be fine with the general public thinking geocachers go around nailing things to trees? That's what Groundspeak is trying to prevent with this guideline.

 

Oh drat, we've gotten back onto the nail thing again! Could the owner of the originally discussed cache PLEASE just go strap their cache to the tree and end all this?

[+Dan2099]

Again I know this is branching off from the topic

Edited June 7, 2012 by Dan2099

[+Dan2099]

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

As I said before on my farm we have used a tree as a fence post instead of cutting down the tree, nails and barbwire 5 strands at a time...it causes no damage to a tree, it simply grows around it. This seems to be yet another rule people interpret different ways.

I've bolded the relevant part in the above quoted guideline. If you put a nail into your tree years ago before you started caching, then by all means use it for a cache, but it may still appear to someone else that you've put it in expressly for your cache. If you put a nail into a tree as a means of hiding a cache, that runs afoul of the above guideline because you're altering property. Again, to repeat what has been said throughout this topic, the damage to the tree isn't what we're talking about here, it's the perception of land managers, other cachers, and the general public. Or would you be fine with the general public thinking geocachers go around nailing things to trees? That's what Groundspeak is trying to prevent with this guideline.

 

Oh drat, we've gotten back onto the nail thing again! Could the owner of the originally discussed cache PLEASE just go strap their cache to the tree and end all this?

 

Again I know this is branching off from the original topic.... You clearly read that guideline as do not drive nails into trees, I do not. To be frank you are wrong not because I say a nail doesn't alter the tree but because Groundspeak endorses putting nails up. On their own website they sell fire tracks and Geo tracks both are nails with reflector heads designed to go in trees.

 

But again thats all interpretation I figure sense the company who made the guideline is endorsing a nail product to go in a tree they would not be against us putting a nail in a tree....again I know off topic

Edited June 7, 2012 by Dan2099

[AZcachemeister]

Just don't put a nail into a walmart lamp-post...that would definitely be bad.

[+tozainamboku]

There is no doubt that every guideline that has ever been added to the cache placement guidelines limits the options for cache placement. There is also little doubt that this means that some quality caches are going to get placed that will violate some guideline. It also means that there are hides, sometimes with lot of favorite points, that may have been placed before the guideline that are grandfathered.

 

The reviewers can't tell how caches are hidden. They rely on people who hide caches checking a box that says they read and understood the guidelines. This means that caches are placed all the time that are in violation of the guidelines. Sometimes nobody reports these and they last a long time, and may even get favorite points. Probably there are sometimes that a reviewer finds one of these caches and decides not to do anything, but I don't think anyone would admit to this publicly.

 

There are also times that a cache that appears to be in violation of a guideline might be allowed. A nail in a tree you own or prehaps got permission for might get an exception. So would a cache hanging from a per-existing nail. Also, I been told that a small tack that leaves no noticeable mark when removed would be ok (that's why night caches that use fire tacks are allowed).

 

The guidelines are there for a reason. Although in recent revisions, any mention of the rationale for any guideline seems to have been removed. I feel that if you don't understand the reasons for a particular guideline, you don't really understand it. I have my personal opinion as to the reasons for most of the guidelines; sometimes this is based on my being around when the guideline was first added and having participated in forum discussions where Groundspeak lackeys and reviewers explained the reasons. But I'm sure that by just reading the guidelines as they stand now, people have a lot of trouble understanding them.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

After you define damage, deface, or destroy, you must find out if the Land owner agrees with your assessment, before you can flat out say NO. If the property owner does not see a nail in his tree as damaging or defacing or destroying the tree, then You are left with The land/property owner having the last say. He owns the property and has given his permission for the cache. Of course the reviewer can deny the cache if he knows about the nail, but with the explicit permission, does he have the right to deny the cache?

 

John

 

If the cache owner put on the cache page that he has explicit permission from the owner to place the cache where it is located and How it is hidden, does it meet the guidelines or not?

 

John

[+The A-Team]

You clearly read that guideline as do not drive nails into trees, I do not. To be frank you are wrong not because I say a nail doesn't alter the tree but because Groundspeak endorses putting nails up. On their own website they sell fire tracks and Geo tracks both are nails with reflector heads designed to go in trees.

Well, I think calling a firetack a nail is a bit of a stretch, so I don't think I'm wrong. Would you classify pushpins for use in corkboards as a nail? I certainly wouldn't, and that's exactly what firetacks are, just with a reflective head.

 

But I digress...

[AZcachemeister]

There is no doubt that every guideline that has ever been added to the cache placement guidelines limits the options for cache placement. There is also little doubt that this means that some quality caches are going to get placed that will violate some guideline. It also means that there are hides, sometimes with lot of favorite points, that may have been placed before the guideline that are grandfathered.

 

The reviewers can't tell how caches are hidden. They rely on people who hide caches checking a box that says they read and understood the guidelines. This means that caches are placed all the time that are in violation of the guidelines. Sometimes nobody reports these and they last a long time, and may even get favorite points. Probably there are sometimes that a reviewer finds one of these caches and decides not to do anything, but I don't think anyone would admit to this publicly.

 

There are also times that a cache that appears to be in violation of a guideline might be allowed. A nail in a tree you own or prehaps got permission for might get an exception. So would a cache hanging from a per-existing nail. Also, I been told that a small tack that leaves no noticeable mark when removed would be ok (that's why night caches that use fire tacks are allowed).

 

The guidelines are there for a reason. Although in recent revisions, any mention of the rationale for any guideline seems to have been removed. I feel that if you don't understand the reasons for a particular guideline, you don't really understand it. I have my personal opinion as to the reasons for most of the guidelines; sometimes this is based on my being around when the guideline was first added and having participated in forum discussions where Groundspeak lackeys and reviewers explained the reasons. But I'm sure that by just reading the guidelines as they stand now, people have a lot of trouble understanding them.

 

It is becoming increasingly necessary to have a legal degree to actually understand all the nuances of the guidelines, never mind all the other gobbledegook in the 'Knowledge Books'.

[AZcachemeister]

Just to be clear, if you own the land (and the tree), you are allowed to place your cache with a nail....right?

No, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand and causes a lot of these problems. Other cachers may see your cache nailed to something and think it's okay for any cache to be nailed to something. The same goes for buried caches, drilling into something, etc. The guidelines are global, they don't make exceptions for your private property.

 

Where did you find a rule against nailing something to your own property?

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.

 

After you define damage, deface, or destroy, you must find out if the Land owner agrees with your assessment, before you can flat out say NO. If the property owner does not see a nail in his tree as damaging or defacing or destroying the tree, then You are left with The land/property owner having the last say. He owns the property and has given his permission for the cache. Of course the reviewer can deny the cache if he knows about the nail, but with the explicit permission, does he have the right to deny the cache?

 

John

 

If the cache owner put on the cache page that he has explicit permission from the owner to place the cache where it is located and How it is hidden, does it meet the guidelines or not?

 

John

 

You would think so, but these days anyone can call FOUL!, explicit permission or not.

[knowschad]

There is no doubt that every guideline that has ever been added to the cache placement guidelines limits the options for cache placement. There is also little doubt that this means that some quality caches are going to get placed that will violate some guideline. It also means that there are hides, sometimes with lot of favorite points, that may have been placed before the guideline that are grandfathered.

 

The reviewers can't tell how caches are hidden. They rely on people who hide caches checking a box that says they read and understood the guidelines. This means that caches are placed all the time that are in violation of the guidelines. Sometimes nobody reports these and they last a long time, and may even get favorite points. Probably there are sometimes that a reviewer finds one of these caches and decides not to do anything, but I don't think anyone would admit to this publicly.

 

There are also times that a cache that appears to be in violation of a guideline might be allowed. A nail in a tree you own or prehaps got permission for might get an exception. So would a cache hanging from a per-existing nail. Also, I been told that a small tack that leaves no noticeable mark when removed would be ok (that's why night caches that use fire tacks are allowed).

 

The guidelines are there for a reason. Although in recent revisions, any mention of the rationale for any guideline seems to have been removed. I feel that if you don't understand the reasons for a particular guideline, you don't really understand it. I have my personal opinion as to the reasons for most of the guidelines; sometimes this is based on my being around when the guideline was first added and having participated in forum discussions where Groundspeak lackeys and reviewers explained the reasons. But I'm sure that by just reading the guidelines as they stand now, people have a lot of trouble understanding them.

Excellent summation, Toz.

[+ShaunEM]

They should change their guidelines to rules and those who break those rules should be pulled from their beds in the dead of night and beaten severely.

 

Nails in trees indeed!

 

Shaun

[+Dan2099]

You clearly read that guideline as do not drive nails into trees, I do not. To be frank you are wrong not because I say a nail doesn't alter the tree but because Groundspeak endorses putting nails up. On their own website they sell fire tracks and Geo tracks both are nails with reflector heads designed to go in trees.

Well, I think calling a firetack a nail is a bit of a stretch, so I don't think I'm wrong. Would you classify pushpins for use in corkboards as a nail? I certainly wouldn't, and that's exactly what firetacks are, just with a reflective head.

 

But I digress...

 

You could think the world is flat but you would still be wrong a firetack pierces the tree, that's how they work..... Pushpins are by definition a nail something used To fasten to a surface... That's like saying a midget isn't a human because they are smaller...I am just saying a nailed up birdhouse isn't outside of guidelines...in either case it's all aesthetically altered not actually altered

 

If someone cut a tree down turning it into a stump that's altering...turning one thing into another... A tree with a nail is still a tree...a tree cut down turns into a stump therefore it's altered...

[+Roman!]

You clearly read that guideline as do not drive nails into trees, I do not. To be frank you are wrong not because I say a nail doesn't alter the tree but because Groundspeak endorses putting nails up. On their own website they sell fire tracks and Geo tracks both are nails with reflector heads designed to go in trees.

Well, I think calling a firetack a nail is a bit of a stretch, so I don't think I'm wrong. Would you classify pushpins for use in corkboards as a nail? I certainly wouldn't, and that's exactly what firetacks are, just with a reflective head.

 

But I digress...

 

You could think the world is flat but you would still be wrong a firetack pierces the tree, that's how they work..... Pushpins are by definition a nail something used To fasten to a surface... That's like saying a midget isn't a human because they are smaller...I am just saying a nailed up birdhouse isn't outside of guidelines...in either case it's all aesthetically altered not actually altered

 

If someone cut a tree down turning it into a stump that's altering...turning one thing into another... A tree with a nail is still a tree...a tree cut down turns into a stump therefore it's altered...

 

So the big question is: can I use a fire tack to fasten a cache to a tree?

[+Dan2099]

You clearly read that guideline as do not drive nails into trees, I do not. To be frank you are wrong not because I say a nail doesn't alter the tree but because Groundspeak endorses putting nails up. On their own website they sell fire tracks and Geo tracks both are nails with reflector heads designed to go in trees.

Well, I think calling a firetack a nail is a bit of a stretch, so I don't think I'm wrong. Would you classify pushpins for use in corkboards as a nail? I certainly wouldn't, and that's exactly what firetacks are, just with a reflective head.

 

But I digress...

 

You could think the world is flat but you would still be wrong a firetack pierces the tree, that's how they work..... Pushpins are by definition a nail something used To fasten to a surface... That's like saying a midget isn't a human because they are smaller...I am just saying a nailed up birdhouse isn't outside of guidelines...in either case it's all aesthetically altered not actually altered

 

If someone cut a tree down turning it into a stump that's altering...turning one thing into another... A tree with a nail is still a tree...a tree cut down turns into a stump therefore it's altered...

 

So the big question is: can I use a fire tack to fasten a cache to a tree?

Probably ....with a few

[knowschad]

So the big question is: can I use a fire tack to fasten a cache to a tree?

If you can, you may.

[+jellis]

If you have to make a tiny pin-hole in a tree by pushing a firetack into it, most people and TPTB probably wouldn't see that as a violation of the "defacement" guideline.

Heard a whole series of caches were archived because of this.

[+lamoracke]

As a finder of caches, its often confusing what to think. I have seen some caches with nails in trees get archived, most likely with someone saying something behind the scenes. I have seen some caches with nails get found by reviewers in their caching profiles stay there just fine, in fact the caches can last for years and years. I have seen some caches or at least the support for the caches drilled into telephone poles that have been archived after a reviewer has found it, sometimes not, and the hide is still the same much later. Its obvious the guidelines are up to an individual's opinion so its hard for me to know what to report and what to not report, and how, and to whom. If you report it to one reviewer, a different reviewer may feel different.

 

There is a cache I have done with over 50 favorite points which someone took a chainsaw to a stump on probably random county property and hollowed a little house inside for the cache. Its just a stump but obviously the leave no trace rule is not followed.

 

I see caches left and right where people have dug out holes and planted fake drains, trees, pipes, and lots of stuff.

 

Seen another cache with lots of favorite points and its a great cache if not for the fact the tree is bleeding sap left and right due to a very large nail into it which was used for the pulley system.

 

In theory, if I did a NA on every cache I saw with a nail or some possible perceived guideline violation, I feel I would be skewered alive by most of the caching community. I get notifications on archive requests, I just do not see others do them either. So, for the most part, I just do not give them favorites, mutter under my breath after I find it, and save only the most egregious abuses to report. Why? Because I do not know what is proper and what is not, because it almost seems the accepted practice goes against the "leave no trace", "do no harm", "digging" or whatever guidelines.

 

And I search for caches in the Seattle area a lot, thus very close to Groundspeak's eye. Thus, if the nail in tree, or drilling into telephones, or using digging hole tools are prevalent here, they are probably prevalent everywhere. I am not saying I feel like reporting every such cache I find like this. However, I see perceived listing violations so many times its hard to not turn a blind eye and just call it status quo.

Edited June 7, 2012 by lamoracke

[+The A-Team]

You could think the world is flat but you would still be wrong a firetack pierces the tree, that's how they work..... Pushpins are by definition a nail something used To fasten to a surface... That's like saying a midget isn't a human because they are smaller...I am just saying a nailed up birdhouse isn't outside of guidelines...in either case it's all aesthetically altered not actually altered

I guess we'll just agree to disagree, and I guess that's the root of this whole problem. The guidelines are intentionally vague to allow for creativity, but unfortunately that makes them vague. It doesn't seem that anyone really knows exactly what the guidelines are, even the reviewers and Groundspeak. That's how we get into problems like the one in the OP, and the quandary lamoracke described that we've all found ourselves in. I guess what it comes down to is, when are you going against the guidelines? As far as I can tell, it's when a reviewer says you are. That's the only way you'll know for sure if you're within the guidelines or not.

 

Now, the reviewer has deemed that the cache in the OP has violated the guidelines. As of right now, the cache is disabled, not archived. All the owner has to do is address this violation and enable the cache. Call it a lesson learned, and the cache will be back in action. If this violation is addressed, the "cache cop" that reported it won't have any more ammunition against this particular cache. As far as the cache cop reporting other caches, that's something that will need to be sorted out within that community. There won't be anything any of us or Groundspeak will be able to do.

[+flyfshrgrl]

Ahhh...someone else who feels frustration because Groundspeak and Geocaching.com do NOT follow or even consistently adhere to the guidelines they chose to publish advising players on what to do when hiding a cache.

 

So, if hammering a nail into a tree causes damage (which I agree, it does), what about the damage from all those LPC hides where someone raises and lowers a metal skirt, which eventually causes the paint to scratch off exposing the metal to the elements and allows rust to form? The owner, not Groundspeak, not the cachers, is responsible for re-painting his post or not, but either way, due to that wonderfully well thought-out, interesting lamp-light hide, in a most beautiful asphalt/concrete/caliche, etc., safe parking lot, just so some cachers can add a meaningless numbers bump, is acceptable in Groundspeak's viewpoint; it has to be, because there are so many of those LPCs hidden. They are hidden just to keep those who want to have a high-find-count happy and the money rolling in to Groundspeak. Yes, it goes against their guidelines and requirements, but Groundspeak openly chooses to allow the damaging LPC hides. Which then means, either inundate Geocaching.com with an equal number of nailing a cache in a tree as to LPCs (Lord, I hope not), or as players, expect and demand consistency from Groundspeak. Until then, Groundspeak will let as much go as they possibly can with little to no self-regulation and direct contradiction to their own publishings, and that is frustrating.

[knowschad]

<lots of stuff removed so I can get straight to the point>

because there are so many of those LPCs hidden. They are hidden just to keep those who want to have a high-find-count happy and the money rolling in to Groundspeak.

 

Actually, no. Power cachers really aren't that fond of LPCs. They are too slow, driving around all those cars, waiting for traffic and stoplights on your way to the next parking lot, waiting for those obnoxiously slow people to unload their shopping cart into the Hummer, etc. A power trail is SO much more efficient!

 

As for money rolling in for Groundspeak, I'm not sure I understand 1) how that makes Groundspeak any richer, 2) how Groundspeak manages to encourage cachers to hide LPCs, and 3) what's wrong with Groundspeak making money.

Edited June 29, 2012 by knowschad

[+The A-Team]

So, if hammering a nail into a tree causes damage (which I agree, it does), what about the damage from all those LPC hides where someone raises and lowers a metal skirt, which eventually causes the paint to scratch off exposing the metal to the elements and allows rust to form? The owner, not Groundspeak, not the cachers, is responsible for re-painting his post or not, but either way, due to that wonderfully well thought-out, interesting lamp-light hide, in a most beautiful asphalt/concrete/caliche, etc., safe parking lot, just so some cachers can add a meaningless numbers bump, is acceptable in Groundspeak's viewpoint; it has to be, because there are so many of those LPCs hidden.

Until someone tells the reviewer that the pole is being damaged due to the presence of the cache, there's no way for Groundspeak to know there's a problem. Remember, reviewers don't visit each and every cache they publish in person. They can only go on the information provided to them. If you see a problem with a cache, you have every right to report it to a reviewer (though the preferred first step would be to contact the owner). If nobody reported these "bad" caches, we'd have illegal caches all over the place and the perception of geocaching would be approaching zero.

[+releasethedogs]

. Sometimes common sense needs to apply to the rules.

 

"common sense" can not be legislated.

[+tozainamboku]

Ahhh...someone else who feels frustration because Groundspeak and Geocaching.com do NOT follow or even consistently adhere to the guidelines they chose to publish advising players on what to do when hiding a cache.

 

So, if hammering a nail into a tree causes damage (which I agree, it does), what about the damage from all those LPC hides where someone raises and lowers a metal skirt, which eventually causes the paint to scratch off exposing the metal to the elements and allows rust to form? The owner, not Groundspeak, not the cachers, is responsible for re-painting his post or not, but either way, due to that wonderfully well thought-out, interesting lamp-light hide, in a most beautiful asphalt/concrete/caliche, etc., safe parking lot, just so some cachers can add a meaningless numbers bump, is acceptable in Groundspeak's viewpoint; it has to be, because there are so many of those LPCs hidden. They are hidden just to keep those who want to have a high-find-count happy and the money rolling in to Groundspeak. Yes, it goes against their guidelines and requirements, but Groundspeak openly chooses to allow the damaging LPC hides. Which then means, either inundate Geocaching.com with an equal number of nailing a cache in a tree as to LPCs (Lord, I hope not), or as players, expect and demand consistency from Groundspeak. Until then, Groundspeak will let as much go as they possibly can with little to no self-regulation and direct contradiction to their own publishings, and that is frustrating.

 

Use the guidelines to rant against caches you don't like. Nothing new here.

 

One issue the guidelines try to address is perception. There is still a perception among some land managers that geocaching involves buried treasure. That is why the no bury guideline is so strongly enforced. In my experience, buried caches (with the top exposed) are not doing a great deal of damage. They can be dug up and removed and the hole filled back in easily. But the perception is that, if allowed, people will be digging holes for everywhere and finder with shovels would be tearing up the ground looking for the buried cache.

 

The nails in trees is probably seen in much the same way. If geocachers were to get reputation for putting nails in trees, land managers would start banning caching before every tree has a nail in it. Sure, in most cases, the damage would be minimal.

 

Most land managers are happy to know that geocachers avoid damaging property to hide or find a cache. They realize however that some unintentional wear and tear may be involved. If this is something easily repaired or that will heal naturally, they are probably willing to live with it.

 

It may be true that some lampposts get scratched form finders lifting the skirts. But even as urban geocaching has grown and people are realizing that caches are sometimes hidden this way, there hasn't yet been a perception problem. Perhaps the lamppost owners actually gave permission and when they see scratches they accept that as incidental to allowing the cache. Perhaps they didn't give permission but this damage isn't more that the ordinary wear and tear on the lamppost anyhow. In areas where rust is a big problem the posts are probably painted periodically anyhow.

 

I guess I just see a difference between some scratches that occur accidentally when someone in a hurry lifts a skirt carelessly, and someone intentionally hammering nails into trees. But I suppose that if I wanted to find a way to rant about caches I don't like, I could say that this is the same thing and that Groundspeak is being inconsistent

[+Lieblweb]

You need guidelines...... and the geocaching guidelines are NOT a load of bull.

 

You need guidelines to keep things 'in check' and under control (so to speak). That's why they're called GUIDE-lines. It's a GUIDE .....to placing geocaches.

 

Personally, I don't get caught up in being anal about the guidelines when searching for geocaches. I see 'questionable' caches all the time but I never complain about them. If there's a 'safety' issue - I may just email the CO or post something in the logs....

 

I don't have time to be the 'guideline police'

[+flyfshrgrl]

I guess ultimately my problem with choosing to post guidelines, choosing to allow some caches to be placed in spite of those caches being a direct contradiction to their suggestions, choosing to disable/archive some caches because it violated their guidelines/suggestions is very confusing and sends mixed messages. There is a trail series that has several caches--some pill bottle, some micro, some container of whatever type that are placed on our posts and wired to our fence, an older fence by the way, that were never placed with our permission--implied or direct consent. The trail series is published as a Premium Member series, and that is the reason I signed up for Premium Membership only a few days after joining Geocaching.com, so we could look at the series on the Internet, see how many there were on our property, and begin to figure out just exactly what was happening. We have seen them in person, too.

Our problem, the series seems to have some popularity, so having them removed might have negative repercussions for us, the landowner. You might think posting to a fence no biggie, but on Christmas Day and then Boxing Day, 2011 the cows got out. The break occurred where a cache was wired and one affixed to a post (a post that we kept having to reset prior to the break, and we couldn't figure out as to why we were having to re-set the post). All day Christmas was spent rounding up the cows. Most of Boxing Day was spent repairing the fence and post, a repair we would not have had to make had 20 plus times the fence and post not been pulled on, a fence that is on private property, by the way. As we were leaving after repairing the fence, we ran across someone who was hunting the trail series. A very nice fellow, who had three very nice GPSrs, but as nice as he was, he was still trespassing. Oh, it was just the three of us repairing the fence. None of those who had hunted the series, pulled on the fence, pulled on the post, were there to help round up the cows and make the repairs, even though they helped cause (not the sole cause, but a contributing factor, nonetheless) the problem for us. Coincidentally, the sections of fence that don't have caches adhered to them are fine and probably have 7-10 years of life left. All sections of fence are the same age, built at the same time.

So, with Groundspeak creating the confusion, it sends the message that not following the guidelines is okay, because caches that do not follow their guidelines get published, receive favorite points, are well-hunted, and well-liked. We took one cache wired to our fence down; it was back up in two days. We left it. Frustrating, very frustrating.

[+BlueDeuce]

You have caches placed on your property that is causing issues at that level and your complaint is mixed messages? Got a link?

Edited July 19, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+flyfshrgrl]

You have caches placed on your property that is causing issues at that level and your complaint is mixed messages? Got a link?

 

The mixed messages have led to the poor placement or the attitude, "I can place any cache any where I desire because this is a fun game that a lot of people enjoy," and yes, both of those issues are a concern. We know the series and know the name of the Cache Owner who hid them. None of us has said more than what I posted, and we have pretty much decided to do no more, because we were placed in a sticky situation by having the caches placed on our property without our knowledge, people have had the opportunity to enjoy the caches, and we don't want to chance any repercussions of having the caches taken away because we complained; this is not a comfortable position to be in.

The cache owner has complained already (not to us or because of us) because of their mis-perception and lack of knowledge as to what their belief of public and private property is. CO stated they checked with a landowner about the public v. private property issue they had farther down the series that was not on our property. CO is still not clear on the particular issue surrounding that section of trail. We are being more diligent as to the state of those cache locations on our property, as it has already been made prevalent to us that if we take it down, "muggle" it, the container will be replaced.

We find many aspects of the game interesting. Overall, we think it's a good game, and enjoy opportunities to use the many GPSrs. As a landowner, especially since one of us is 78 and actively works the property and the cows, we just expected Groundspeak to do what they advertise to do, and they don't, period.

Edited July 19, 2012 by flyfshrgrl