Cache container

[+hans415]

My stakes have been fixed to include on or next or in the stakes but I still believe that plain stakes are a viable Cache just as much as a 35 mm plastic container. Just for the record

[+Don_J]

Ok all I have been waiting for someone to think of this, but looks as if no one will so I will approach it. Magnetic Strips Placed on Poles or Boxes we have all found them they have the log either Pasted on Back or I have see them manufactured with a wipe off log. Some say Warning High Voltage, some say something else. These are not "Containers" yet they are accepted as a nice evil Cache and no one complains. There is no difference in Magnetic non-containers and a wooden Stake.

 

Staple a baggie with a log in to the back of your stake and you're good. It would be lamest cache of all time, but you would be technically meeting the guidelines. No one is asking you to not be creative and no one is asking you not to try to get the guidelines changed, they are just asking you follow the current guidelines. If I want to get the speed limit raised I go through the proper process. I don't simply drive fast until someone notices and then hope they'll raise the limit instead of giving me a ticket.

 

As far as 100s of stakes in the desert. If I drove out there and found that the CO couldn't even bother to give me a carpy filmcan with something in it that I could sign, I'd be pissed. I'm a geocacher. I find and log geocaches. A wooden stake stuck in a bush is not a geocache. It's something that you can attach a geocache to, but it is not a geocache.

Only thing I have to add so a 35 mm is better then just a stake? does that not actually and technically become the same thing? you are logging a piece of paper versus wood but that is all you can do. I have more then just stakes. Mentioned earlier what types we have out here from ammo cans to Telephones to bubble gum machines to extra extra Large Missile cans, to other things it isnt just a wooden stake with a dna tube run.

 

This is what I'm seeing as a result of this so called Power Caching. We are incrementally changing what is considered to be traditional caching, and we are rationalizing it by saying, "what's the difference", or "It's only a little different". So now, because of these small changes that people seem to be accepting, we're at a point that we don't use a container at all. Were simply placing an object that others are expected to sign, with the idea that there will always be a place to sign because the rain will wash off all the signatures. What is the next rationalization? Why should I stop and sign the stake if the rain is just going to wash it away? Now, we have rationalized ourselves to the point that we are driving down the road, looking out the window and saying, Yep, there's the cache. Were do we go from there? Actually driving by wastes gas. I can save the environment by simply looking them up on Google Maps. Sounds silly? European cachers were doing this with Virtual caches five years ago, forcing Groundspeak to narrow the guidelines.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Don_J

[Pontoffel Pock]

But hans415, the rules state you need to sign a log for it to count- right?

[+Don_J]

so utility plates have now been changed to? I doubt it

 

Utility plates usually have the log in a baggie, which seems to count as a container. Not a good one, but a container.

yes some have baggies some do not seen them 4 different ways, but if I put a baggie stapled on a stake then it would become a legit stake container

yes

And do you see that the Baggie actually changes nothing? A baggie on top of the stake changes nothing as 99% of cachers will still sign or stamp the stake, Power cachers will never take the time to open and sign the log inside. Therefore we are putting needless plastic baggies and littering the earth again with Plastic and chemicals. Do you see how stupid that is. Oh wait that reminds me of something. I will post it.

 

If you are truly this concerned about the environment, you should be leaving anything in it. Especially anything that entices people to drive gas/diesel powered vehicles through the area. This has nothing to do with the environment and you know it. Why not tell us the real reason that you don't want to use proper containers.

If you read above you will see that I am not concerned about the enviorment until someone calls it Geolittering with stakes and then I am qui8ck to point out that Stakes are better then plastic containers

 

"Geolitter" is a forum term used by some to describe any type of cache that they don't approve of. I doubt it was personal.

 

Why don't you want to use a proper container? The truth.

[+hans415]

But hans415, the rules state you need to sign a log for it to count- right?

sign a log and it is not considered a cache. Signing something is what is required that people can sign and therefore the Stake becomes the log. Paper is made from logs. Logs are the first before paper. If you have nanos or a micro that only has a small piece of paper in it then there is NO difference between them and a stake. They both have places to sign. If you have a small to extra large container that holds things then yes it is not the same as a Stake.

[+Don_J]

Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines

Last Updated: September 18, 2012

 

2. Geocache Maintenance

• Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance.
• Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

The GCRM statement "Replace the log as needed or container if the cache container is broken or missing" suggests that you expect the community to maintain this series for you. Also, were your DIP caches approved with the GCRM statement in place when you submitted the caches?

Huh? what did this have to do with anything?

I think it had to do with what this thread was originally talking about, until you turned it into a discussion about your stake caches. LoneR may have thought you were the cache owner referenced in one of the first 63 posts, even though you are not.

 

You didn't start this thread, you replied to it -- it wasn't originally about you, and therefore not all the replies may be about you, either.

 

(This reply is about you, by the way, just to clear things up.)

 

Actually, that was where the thread had drifted to. The OP was about stakes that you sign in reference to a series in Arizona that copied Hans' series in Nevada.

 

It's actually quite comical watching Hans try to defend his series. It reminds me of a lot of TV and radio ads that will hopefully end at 8PM tonight.

I am guessing that you would not defend something or someone you believe in?

 

Why don't you want to use traditional containers?

(Third time)

[+hans415]

so utility plates have now been changed to? I doubt it

 

Utility plates usually have the log in a baggie, which seems to count as a container. Not a good one, but a container.

yes some have baggies some do not seen them 4 different ways, but if I put a baggie stapled on a stake then it would become a legit stake container

yes

And do you see that the Baggie actually changes nothing? A baggie on top of the stake changes nothing as 99% of cachers will still sign or stamp the stake, Power cachers will never take the time to open and sign the log inside. Therefore we are putting needless plastic baggies and littering the earth again with Plastic and chemicals. Do you see how stupid that is. Oh wait that reminds me of something. I will post it.

 

If you are truly this concerned about the environment, you should be leaving anything in it. Especially anything that entices people to drive gas/diesel powered vehicles through the area. This has nothing to do with the environment and you know it. Why not tell us the real reason that you don't want to use proper containers.

If you read above you will see that I am not concerned about the enviorment until someone calls it Geolittering with stakes and then I am qui8ck to point out that Stakes are better then plastic containers

 

"Geolitter" is a forum term used by some to describe any type of cache that they don't approve of. I doubt it was personal.

 

Why don't you want to use a proper container? The truth.

Geesh really I feel the Bright Glare of lights shinning in my face. I see in the shadows a gunman demanding the truth or Truth serum will be used. Too funny. I use many many different types of Legal Containers. I feel strongly that Stakes should be accepted as a Viable Nano to Micro Cache. There is no Truth that you are seeking. It is just plain and simple. On a Power run a Stake makes prefect sense as I have stated before. One step out of Vehicle stamp and move on to next. I have also Stated before that our power run does not just have stakes with DNA tubes on them they consist of all sizes of cache containers. from nanos to extra extra large. I find stakes with dna tubes on them to slow down the hunt but I accept that unless we can change the rules on stakes.

[knowschad]

Here Hzoi Shadow ace was the first one to start this thread. There is no link to anything on his post. He/she was asking about Survey Stakes on the ground in the original post. I started survey Stakes in May of this year. He started the Post in October this year as our power run was gaining popularity. We now have had people from all corners of the world come and do the power run. So maybe just Maybe it was about our power run.

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:32 AM

Recently we have started seeing more caches that are simply a sandwich bad and a piece of paper or even more of a lack of container are the new concept of placing a wooden stake on the ground.

 

The stake IS the cache and the logbook.

 

Do cachers no longer require containers?

 

I understand the whole micro explosion and I am not trying to bring up size.. I am asking if :

1) plastic bag + paper = geocache

2) survey stake on the ground = geocache

 

Or are we simply too old school and expect to much?

-=Tucson, Arizona

"Nil Sine Numine", "Nothing without the Diety"

 

Are you asking about cachers, or caches no longer requiring containers? If you are asking about caches, the answer is decidedly... they do still require containers, and unless/until that changes, stake caches are not "legal" geocaches. You might want to take the time to read this thread about "Flat caches"

 

If you don't care to take the time to read the entire (lengthy) thread, here are some highlights:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=302732&view=findpost&p=5134836

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=302732&view=findpost&p=5134843

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=302732&view=findpost&p=5134869

[+Don_J]

so utility plates have now been changed to? I doubt it

 

Utility plates usually have the log in a baggie, which seems to count as a container. Not a good one, but a container.

yes some have baggies some do not seen them 4 different ways, but if I put a baggie stapled on a stake then it would become a legit stake container

yes

And do you see that the Baggie actually changes nothing? A baggie on top of the stake changes nothing as 99% of cachers will still sign or stamp the stake, Power cachers will never take the time to open and sign the log inside. Therefore we are putting needless plastic baggies and littering the earth again with Plastic and chemicals. Do you see how stupid that is. Oh wait that reminds me of something. I will post it.

 

If you are truly this concerned about the environment, you should be leaving anything in it. Especially anything that entices people to drive gas/diesel powered vehicles through the area. This has nothing to do with the environment and you know it. Why not tell us the real reason that you don't want to use proper containers.

If you read above you will see that I am not concerned about the enviorment until someone calls it Geolittering with stakes and then I am qui8ck to point out that Stakes are better then plastic containers

 

"Geolitter" is a forum term used by some to describe any type of cache that they don't approve of. I doubt it was personal.

 

Why don't you want to use a proper container? The truth.

Geesh really I feel the Bright Glare of lights shinning in my face. I see in the shadows a gunman demanding the truth or Truth serum will be used. Too funny. I use many many different types of Legal Containers. I feel strongly that Stakes should be accepted as a Viable Nano to Micro Cache. There is no Truth that you are seeking. It is just plain and simple. On a Power run a Stake makes prefect sense as I have stated before. One step out of Vehicle stamp and move on to next. I have also Stated before that our power run does not just have stakes with DNA tubes on them they consist of all sizes of cache containers. from nanos to extra extra large. I find stakes with dna tubes on them to slow down the hunt but I accept that unless we can change the rules on stakes.

 

Why don't you want to use proper containers as described in the guidelines? I simply don't accept the fact that it so the finders can do so at a quicker pace or that you are concerned about the environment.

 

Since you will not answer the question, I can only assume that it is because you want to place a whole bunch of geocaches but you do not want to be concerned about the maintenance of the caches. You do not want to be concerned about replacing logs or containers when they go missing so you came up with this idea of a self cleaning, biodegradable non-container that you wish to call a geocache. It's a great idea, but it's not a geocache and it shouldn't be listed on geocaching.com. If you want to re-invent the game, you should probably do what those folks did with the QR thingies. Create your own website. Stake Caching. If you can pull it off, there could be stake power trails all over the world and the rest of us could benefit by all the stakes laying around when the Zombie Apocalypse happens.

[+hans415]

so utility plates have now been changed to? I doubt it

 

Utility plates usually have the log in a baggie, which seems to count as a container. Not a good one, but a container.

yes some have baggies some do not seen them 4 different ways, but if I put a baggie stapled on a stake then it would become a legit stake container

yes

And do you see that the Baggie actually changes nothing? A baggie on top of the stake changes nothing as 99% of cachers will still sign or stamp the stake, Power cachers will never take the time to open and sign the log inside. Therefore we are putting needless plastic baggies and littering the earth again with Plastic and chemicals. Do you see how stupid that is. Oh wait that reminds me of something. I will post it.

 

If you are truly this concerned about the environment, you should be leaving anything in it. Especially anything that entices people to drive gas/diesel powered vehicles through the area. This has nothing to do with the environment and you know it. Why not tell us the real reason that you don't want to use proper containers.

If you read above you will see that I am not concerned about the enviorment until someone calls it Geolittering with stakes and then I am qui8ck to point out that Stakes are better then plastic containers

 

"Geolitter" is a forum term used by some to describe any type of cache that they don't approve of. I doubt it was personal.

 

Why don't you want to use a proper container? The truth.

Geesh really I feel the Bright Glare of lights shinning in my face. I see in the shadows a gunman demanding the truth or Truth serum will be used. Too funny. I use many many different types of Legal Containers. I feel strongly that Stakes should be accepted as a Viable Nano to Micro Cache. There is no Truth that you are seeking. It is just plain and simple. On a Power run a Stake makes prefect sense as I have stated before. One step out of Vehicle stamp and move on to next. I have also Stated before that our power run does not just have stakes with DNA tubes on them they consist of all sizes of cache containers. from nanos to extra extra large. I find stakes with dna tubes on them to slow down the hunt but I accept that unless we can change the rules on stakes.

 

Why don't you want to use proper containers as described in the guidelines? I simply don't accept the fact that it so the finders can do so at a quicker pace or that you are concerned about the environment.

 

Since you will not answer the question, I can only assume that it is because you want to place a whole bunch of geocaches but you do not want to be concerned about the maintenance of the caches. You do not want to be concerned about replacing logs or containers when they go missing so you came up with this idea of a self cleaning, biodegradable non-container that you wish to call a geocache. It's a great idea, but it's not a geocache and it shouldn't be listed on geocaching.com. If you want to re-invent the game, you should probably do what those folks did with the QR thingies. Create your own website. Stake Caching. If you can pull it off, there could be stake power trails all over the world and the rest of us could benefit by all the stakes laying around when the Zombie Apocalypse happens.

you are dead wrong but it does not matter think how you want to think

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

"The language of location", "It's the location that matters", the fun of discovering new places, etc.

 

Maybe not so much.

 

As we learned with virts, if it doesn't have a container with a log it's not geocaching.

Edited November 6, 2012 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+fbingha]

you are dead wrong but it does not matter think how you want to think

 

Why don't you attempt to explain the positive benefit of this geocache method?

 

- You get a lot more cache hide points?

- Finders get a lot more cache find points without doing anything? Finders don't even need to sign since it has been established that the environment is expected to wash away signatures. Proof is not required.

 

Why don't you attach QR codes to every stake and go with that game? It seems to really, really fit with what you are doing.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Keystone

[+sbell111]

But hans415, the rules state you need to sign a log for it to count- right?

The 'rules' actually don't say that. A cache owner is free to allow a find even if the log wasn't signed.

[+Ginny & Stevecat]

Good Job everyone. With all the complaining, this topic is a moot point anymore. The Yerington PT, all 1200 plus personal caches non PT related were archived by Groundspeak about an hour ago. Time to move onto something else to complain about.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have seen them for sale on Groundspeak and every other cacheing store. Also Utility plates are not a container

 

I've found a few utility plate caches as well as flat magnet caches. Almost everyone one of them had a plastic baggie with a log sheet in it attached to the back. The plastic baggie is the container for the log sheet.

 

In a recent thread about containers two different reviewers indicated that their interpretation of container is that the container and log sheet are two separate items, thus according to their interpretation a wooden stake that also servers as the log would be in violation of the guidelines.

 

The fact that you've encountered sign-able "containers" as caches is irrelevant. As someone else mentioned if the reviewer isn't aware that a cache violated the guidelines in terms of the type of "container" that is used, and even how it's hidden it could get published and might remain active for a long time if nobody reported it to the review (and the reviewer didn't try to find it themselves).

 

The existence of container-less caches such as earth caches, virtual caches, and webcam is also irrelevant. Both virtual and webcam caches are no longer allowed and the only ones that do exist are still out there due to the grandfather clause in the guidelines. Earth caches have their own set of guidelines that must be adhered to which allow them to be container-less.

 

Finally, in the fourth sentence of the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines page (which you claimed that you read and understood for every cache that you've created) it states:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache."

 

That seems pretty self-explanatory and refutes any argument you might might for a guideline change because you've found caches which violated the current guidelines.

 

I don't really see anyone claiming that the placement requirements/guidelines are set in stone and can never be changed. You, or anyone else, can lobby for a change in the guidelines but you better have a pretty compelling argument for the change and be prepared to refute and counter arguments for keeping the current requirement/guideline.

 

In the case of your specific proposal (a sign-able container) I would object to it simply because there's no way to draw a line between cache which was a wooden container that you bought and some other object that geocachers might sign. I've got a few bags of aluminum cans in my garage ready to take to the recycling center. I could dump the 100 or so cans on the ground somewhere, call one of them a cache, and under you proposal it would be considered a valid container/cache. A signable container just has too many possibilities for abuse to make it a viable cache container type.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

But hans415, the rules state you need to sign a log for it to count- right?

The 'rules' actually don't say that. A cache owner is free to allow a find even if the log wasn't signed.

 

What the rules say is if the log is signed, it can be logged on line.

[Mr.Yuck]

Good Job everyone. With all the complaining, this topic is a moot point anymore. The Yerington PT, all 1200 plus personal caches non PT related were archived by Groundspeak about an hour ago. Time to move onto something else to complain about.

 

I'm sort of confused. And for the record, I actually disagree with the mass archival. Hans only owns about 350 caches, but a "Team Sagebrush" had 1,378 archived today. I assume he is mostly behind that account, which was just created this past summer. Hans has said all his containers were not stakes, and this quote from a random "TS" cache page seems to verify that:

 

You will be looking for all different types of caches along this route. Most of the Route can be done with a two wheel car but a few spots maybe a bit bumpier then others, so enter at your own Risk. There will be Two Blm Gates so if they are closed please reclose them after going through. All are hidden next to or close by the Roadway. I use the term loosely on Roadway at times . You will have 1.5 x 1.5's to 1.5 x 4.5 dufaculty. Some you will just find downright Funny and some you will scratch your head on. If you do not see the type of Containers I used on CAS run then it will be something different. From Ammo Cans to Homemade Bubble Gum machines - the Bubble Gum of course, I have tried to give you a Variety of Caches to make your trip pleasant and joyful.

 

However, it does appear he is admitting that the CAS run (whatever that was) was all wooden stakes.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[AZcachemeister]

Good Job everyone. With all the complaining, this topic is a moot point anymore. The Yerington PT, all 1200 plus personal caches non PT related were archived by Groundspeak about an hour ago. Time to move onto something else to complain about.

 

And now if the same type of 'mis-placed good intention' can be cleared out of Arizona I will be happy.

I'm absolutely certain that Hans meant well, but a Geocache involving signing a random object dropped at the site is not an acceptable Geocache.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak will develop the proposed 'QR Code' type 'Challenge', and Hans can distribute them through the desert to his heart's content.

 

Please note that a 'QR Code Challenge' is not a Geocache.

[+niraD]

"I'm out of it for a little while, everyone gets delusions of grandeur!" - Han Solo, Return of the Jedi

 

I'm replying to a few comments all at once.

 

Why does a Container have to open to be a Geocache Container?

con·tain·er /kən ˈtā nər/ Noun: An object that can be used to hold or transport something.

 

Okay, let's say your stakes don't need to open to be containers. But how do they "hold or transport something"?

Wow you finally learned the word container and what the dictionary says it is.

As a great man once said... Sigh, no need to be snide.

 

Not allowed, and will get archived if the reviewer is notified.

no it doesn't. I know of some that are over 8 years old and also placed by Reviewers...

If the offending cache is 8 years old, then it is probably grandfathered. When the guidelines have changed, existing caches have often been allowed to remain, even though new caches of the same type would no longer be allowed.

 

And as others have pointed out, there is no precedent when listing geocaches.

 

Only thing I have to add so a 35 mm is better then just a stake?

First you need to define "better".

 

A 35mm film canister is already a container. If you just add a log sheet to it, then you have a cache that meets the guidelines about containers and logs.

 

A wooden stake is not a container. To create a cache that meets the guidelines about containers and logs, you need to add a container, or modify the stake itself so that it becomes a container.

 

So if your goal is to create a geocache without adding another container of some sort, then yes, a 35mm film canister is better. But I've seen caches that were created by adding a container (e.g., a blinker or a Bison tube) to a wooden stake, a wooden post, a log, a branch, or some similar object. Those caches can be hidden in ways that a 35mm film canister by itself cannot, so in these situations, a wooden stake is better.

 

Best of luck, but please understand that you are never going to see this happen. Your efforts might be better utilized creating actual geocache containers. Groundspeak has spent the last six years getting out of the "container-less" cache business. With the exception of Events and Earthcaches, a cache has to have a container and the container has to contain a log. The Chances of Groundspeak doing a complete turn around because someone wants to leave random objects across the landscape and call them caches, and others want to drive around finding them and pretending that they are finding caches, is slim to none.

+1

 

Additionally, the trend I've seen when the guidelines change is that they add restrictions on caches, based on situations that have caused problems. Changes to the guidelines generally don't start allowing something that used to be restricted.

[+Manville Possum]

Good Job everyone. With all the complaining, this topic is a moot point anymore. The Yerington PT, all 1200 plus personal caches non PT related were archived by Groundspeak about an hour ago. Time to move onto something else to complain about.

 

And now if the same type of 'mis-placed good intention' can be cleared out of Arizona I will be happy.

I'm absolutely certain that Hans meant well, but a Geocache involving signing a random object dropped at the site is not an acceptable Geocache.

 

I'm very glad to see this.

Thanks Groundspeak.

[+ShadowAce]

The only thing I see wrong with signing the steak or for that matter the outside of any cache, is that many cacher would start signing anything they think is the cache. This would lead to many areas banning caching due to vandelism. If the signatures are hidden inside an 'box' and not out for everyone to see, caching will be precieved in better light.

In the Desert a stake is the only thing out there or maybe a rusted can I am pretty sure no one will mind if a can or stake is signed.

 

Awesome, by this logic, I now sign the rocks the cache is piled UNDER! Whooo think of the time I save.

[+wimseyguy]

Good Job everyone. With all the complaining, this topic is a moot point anymore. The Yerington PT, all 1200 plus personal caches non PT related were archived by Groundspeak about an hour ago. Time to move onto something else to complain about.

Sorry dude, but I cannot agree with your statement. I doubt that this forum thread led to the archival.

Your Rt 66 trail was done correctly with containers and a logsheet. I had a great time doing that trail.

Survey stakes that get inked are not containers, and do not contain logs, and are not geocaches.

And hans' argument was inane.

[+ShadowAce]

Here Hzoi Shadow ace was the first one to start this thread. There is no link to anything on his post. He/she was asking about Survey Stakes on the ground in the original post. I started survey Stakes in May of this year. He started the Post in October this year as our power run was gaining popularity. We now have had people from all corners of the world come and do the power run. So maybe just Maybe it was about our power run.

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:32 AM

Recently we have started seeing more caches that are simply a sandwich bad and a piece of paper or even more of a lack of container are the new concept of placing a wooden stake on the ground.

 

The stake IS the cache and the logbook.

 

Do cachers no longer require containers?

 

I understand the whole micro explosion and I am not trying to bring up size.. I am asking if :

1) plastic bag + paper = geocache

2) survey stake on the ground = geocache

 

Or are we simply too old school and expect to much?

-=Tucson, Arizona

"Nil Sine Numine", "Nothing without the Diety"

 

Really gonna try to say I was on about you? You wrote me and said you were planning to delete my logs?

 

I logged a single cache you own?

 

No.. so keep yappin, and thanks for ruining my thread. It's why I avoid the forums normally.

 

I knew nothing of you until you pipped in claiming to be the creator of the concept, which is not true. I have seen caches like this refused and archived long and many years ago..

Edited November 7, 2012 by ShadowAce

[4wheelin_fool]

Stakes are not caches.

 

If you want Groundspeak to list them as "caches", that would be stretching the definition to dimensions that do not fit what most people, and non cachers would consider a "cache".

[+tozainamboku]

My stakes have been fixed to include on or next or in the stakes but I still believe that plain stakes are a viable Cache just as much as a 35 mm plastic container. Just for the record

They probably are a viable cache container. But Groundspeak has chosen to define the container and a log in a certain way - at least per the posts that have been made by certain reviewers who have indicated that a cache should be something that holds a separate log inside.

 

However Groundspeak has not posted a clarification of the guidelines - which are open to interpretation as they currently stand. Nor have they explained the reason for the guidelines.

 

There have been some good speculation as to why there might be this guideline. One is that if you start having caches where you write on piece of wood left as the cache, people would sign any piece of wood they found. Or they might write on a brick or other "property" at that cache site. Of course a cache should be something that is ultimately identifiable as the cache a user is seeking. Just signing your name on a piece of wood or a rock is not finding the cache. But if the piece of wood or rock were clearly identified, and there was some way to log my find, I don't see why this is a viable alternative for a traditional container.

 

Perhaps TPTB feel that a container that has a separate log is identifiable as as cache, but a wooden stake that has "GEOCACHE" written on it is not. Of course I've found containers with papers inside that were not the cache. They were letterboxes and summit registers. And I have seen people who find these think that they had found the cache.

 

 

But hans415, the rules state you need to sign a log for it to count- right?

Count for what?

 

There is no rule that says you have to sign a log for it to count. There is not even a rule that says you have to sign a log in order to log the find online.

 

The only guidelines applicable here are that the cache must include a log to sign and that if the log is not signed a cache owner may delete the online found log.

[+Totem Clan]

My stakes have been fixed to include on or next or in the stakes but I still believe that plain stakes are a viable Cache just as much as a 35 mm plastic container. Just for the record

They probably are a viable cache container. But Groundspeak has chosen to define the container and a log in a certain way - at least per the posts that have been made by certain reviewers who have indicated that a cache should be something that holds a separate log inside.

 

However Groundspeak has not posted a clarification of the guidelines - which are open to interpretation as they currently stand. Nor have they explained the reason for the guidelines.

 

There have been some good speculation as to why there might be this guideline. One is that if you start having caches where you write on piece of wood left as the cache, people would sign any piece of wood they found. Or they might write on a brick or other "property" at that cache site. Of course a cache should be something that is ultimately identifiable as the cache a user is seeking. Just signing your name on a piece of wood or a rock is not finding the cache. But if the piece of wood or rock were clearly identified, and there was some way to log my find, I don't see why this is a viable alternative for a traditional container.

 

Perhaps TPTB feel that a container that has a separate log is identifiable as as cache, but a wooden stake that has "GEOCACHE" written on it is not. Of course I've found containers with papers inside that were not the cache. They were letterboxes and summit registers. And I have seen people who find these think that they had found the cache.

 

 

But hans415, the rules state you need to sign a log for it to count- right?

Count for what?

 

There is no rule that says you have to sign a log for it to count. There is not even a rule that says you have to sign a log in order to log the find online.

 

The only guidelines applicable here are that the cache must include a log to sign and that if the log is not signed a cache owner may delete the online found log.

The question here never was can you assume that they could used as caches or could you read the quidelines in such a way as to justify them as such. The question was does GC accept them as caches and the answer is clearly no.

Anything beyond that, no matter how well presented is just wasted words.

[+tozainamboku]

The question here never was can you assume that they could used as caches or could you read the quidelines in such a way as to justify them as such. The question was does GC accept them as caches and the answer is clearly no.

Anything beyond that, no matter how well presented is just wasted words.

I guess we can accept all of Groundspeak's decisions and their definition of what we can use as containers and logs as final, even if we don't understand the reasons for it. If only people would accept the guidelines on virtual caches and didn't keep asking for them back. At least with virtuals there have been a number of posts by Groundspeak lackeys, including Jeremy, that attempt to explain the decision to stop accepting new virtuals and to explain the alternatives that Groundspeak has provided.

 

Now perhaps I missed it and someone can point it out, but I have yet to see an official explaination of why they define container and log this way. There has been some good speculation from some forum participants, but this had not been convincing. It would seem that that there could be less restrictive guidelines that would prevent the sorts of problems that have been speculated about. I sure would like a Groundspeak representative to come to the forum and tell us their thinking here. Perhaps a better solution could be worked out. If nothing else the guideline could be made a little less confusing.

 

So if you are addressing those who got their stakes archived, I say sure, Groundspeak owns the website and make up any rules they like. They can archive any cache they want so long as they can claim it violates a guideline, and right now they have enough guidelines that I suspect no original idea for a cache is safe. But whenever this (or other issues with guidelines) come up, I'm not going to be silent just because Groundspeak says this is the guideline. If it isn't obvious to me why the guideline exists, I am going to keep questioning it and keep demanding an explanation for why it is there. If my words are wasted, so be it. My belief is that Groundspeak wants to keep its customers happy and if we make enough noise, we can get things changed (or at least feel that someone is paying attention).

[+Don_J]

 

Now perhaps I missed it and someone can point it out, but I have yet to see an official explaination of why they define container and log this way. There has been some good speculation from some forum participants, but this had not been convincing. It would seem that that there could be less restrictive guidelines that would prevent the sorts of problems that have been speculated about. I sure would like a Groundspeak representative to come to the forum and tell us their thinking here. Perhaps a better solution could be worked out. If nothing else the guideline could be made a little less confusing.

 

 

I was just getting started, so perhaps you can help with the chronology of events here. When did this part of the guidelines first appear in relationship to the discontinuance of Virtual caches?

 

I know that when a traditional cache owner decides that they are not going to replace their missing container and changes the description to say, "email me what is on the sign", etc, thus converting it into a virtual, the reviewers use this guideline when they tell them to fix their cache. Until this discussion and the one on flat caches started, I always thought that the guideline was for just this reason, to keep people from placing traditional caches that are actually virtual and don't have a container and log to sign.

[+Manville Possum]

I just wonder if the archived listings will be picked up by the CO, or will they just be left behind as geocaching related litter? That's how I define geolitter. Left behind geocaching related items after the listings are archived.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Now perhaps I missed it and someone can point it out, but I have yet to see an official explaination of why they define container and log this way. There has been some good speculation from some forum participants, but this had not been convincing. It would seem that that there could be less restrictive guidelines that would prevent the sorts of problems that have been speculated about. I sure would like a Groundspeak representative to come to the forum and tell us their thinking here. Perhaps a better solution could be worked out. If nothing else the guideline could be made a little less confusing.

 

 

I was just getting started, so perhaps you can help with the chronology of events here. When did this part of the guidelines first appear in relationship to the discontinuance of Virtual caches?

 

I know that when a traditional cache owner decides that they are not going to replace their missing container and changes the description to say, "email me what is on the sign", etc, thus converting it into a virtual, the reviewers use this guideline when they tell them to fix their cache. Until this discussion and the one on flat caches started, I always thought that the guideline was for just this reason, to keep people from placing traditional caches that are actually virtual and don't have a container and log to sign.

IIRC, code word caches were already banned before virtuals were archived, but I'm not 100% positive about this. The guideline to include a log was, I assume, originally for this purpose. It's also likely the the original wording was that a cache at a minimum needed a container and needed to include a log of some sort. Flat magnetic caches were pretty rare as were things like boards or bricks that someone wrote "GEOCACHE" on and expected you to sign the outside. But I recall finding caches like this and enjoying them. It is not clear to me at what time (or for what reason) the guideline began to be interpreted as requiring a separate sheet inside the cache "container". I can only speculate on the reasons why this interpretation started.

[+3doxies]

Ahhhh, the inner workings of the amphibian brain...who knows what goes on in there? Good luck in your quest, Toz...

 

IIRC, we've found and signed logs (oak, pine, maybe a locust or two), zip-ties, a dog bowl, too many magnetic sheets to count, a strip of waterproof paper stuck to the inside of an outlet cover plate, and the fender of an abandoned car out in the woods. Most of these gave far more entertainment value than the myriads of paper strips housed within plastic bags and then housed within another container. Guess that's where we got it wrong...thought this was a game, thus implying some inherent entertainment component instead of an exercise in rule-book reading and interpretaton. Some of y'all need to return to the courtroom...your fee meter is running.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Now perhaps I missed it and someone can point it out, but I have yet to see an official explaination of why they define container and log this way. There has been some good speculation from some forum participants, but this had not been convincing. It would seem that that there could be less restrictive guidelines that would prevent the sorts of problems that have been speculated about. I sure would like a Groundspeak representative to come to the forum and tell us their thinking here. Perhaps a better solution could be worked out. If nothing else the guideline could be made a little less confusing.

 

 

I was just getting started, so perhaps you can help with the chronology of events here. When did this part of the guidelines first appear in relationship to the discontinuance of Virtual caches?

 

I know that when a traditional cache owner decides that they are not going to replace their missing container and changes the description to say, "email me what is on the sign", etc, thus converting it into a virtual, the reviewers use this guideline when they tell them to fix their cache.

 

Like this one? Rift Valley...check out the publication data. That's a bucket list cache for me. So far I've spent about 2.5 hours in Kenya (on three occasions) but have yet to leave the airport.

 

I don't think it was intended to ever be a traditional, but it sounded like the CO felt that a traditional cache wouldn't last there so he created the first virtual...and marked an object at the location with a "email what the markings say".

 

There was a somewhat recent case of a traditional cache that temporarily became inaccessible due to the London Olympics. The CO temporarily allowed people to log it as a virtual...that is, until the reviewer archived it. Frankly, I think the reviewer jumped the gun on that one. There really wasn't any harm in letting geocachers that were attending the olympics to log that cache.

[Clan Riffster]

I just wonder if the archived listings will be picked up by the CO, or will they just be left behind as geocaching related litter? That's how I define geolitter. Left behind geocaching related items after the listings are archived.

When I saw that the caches were naught but wooden stakes, my assumption was that the owner was either too cheap to provide real containers, or too lazy to provide real maintenance. Judging from Hans' comments on here, it's still a flip of the coin for me. Either attitude, taken to its logical conclusion, will likely result in those non-caches littering the environment for decades to come. Anyone who feels that rules/guidelines can be ignored when they are inconvenient is unlikely to follow the ones suggesting that they clean up after themselves.

 

Though I did find it funny that Hans tried spinning the environmental angle.

[+Manville Possum]

I just wonder if the archived listings will be picked up by the CO, or will they just be left behind as geocaching related litter? That's how I define geolitter. Left behind geocaching related items after the listings are archived.

When I saw that the caches were naught but wooden stakes, my assumption was that the owner was either too cheap to provide real containers, or too lazy to provide real maintenance. Judging from Hans' comments on here, it's still a flip of the coin for me. Either attitude, taken to its logical conclusion, will likely result in those non-caches littering the environment for decades to come. Anyone who feels that rules/guidelines can be ignored when they are inconvenient is unlikely to follow the ones suggesting that they clean up after themselves.

 

Though I did find it funny that Hans tried spinning the environmental angle.

 

I just got back from checking one of my listings that has been muggled again. I kinda wish things had worked out better for Hans, and I could have replaced the cache with a 2x4.

Really, I agree with you that those that are not willing to follow the rules won't clean up after themselves after a forced archival of their listings for not following Groundspeaks rules.

 

Edit to add: I'm sure Hans was given a fair chance, we don't know what was communicated between him and Groundspeak. Sorry Hans, but I agree with Groundspeak on this issue.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Lil Devil]

I kinda wish things had worked out better for Hans, and I could have replaced the cache with a 2x4.

I know you meant that as a joke, but it explains exactly why Groundspeak has that guideline. Otherwise every piece of wood, shard of pottery, empty gum wrapper, spent lottery ticket and sparkley rock would eventually become a geocache. I'd rather continue searching for ammo cans, Tupperware and pill bottles.

[knowschad]

I just got back from checking one of my listings that has been muggled again. I kinda wish things had worked out better for Hans, and I could have replaced the cache with a 2x4.

Would we have different size categories for stake caches?

 

1. micro: toothpicks, matchsticks, twigs
2. small: survey stakes, small branches
3. regular: 2x4, 4x4 (can be logged with ordinary pen or pencil)
4. large: e.g. Railroad ties, telephone poles (can log with large felt-tip pens)
5. other: See the cache description

Edited November 9, 2012 by knowschad

[Mr.Yuck]

I just wonder if the archived listings will be picked up by the CO, or will they just be left behind as geocaching related litter? That's how I define geolitter. Left behind geocaching related items after the listings are archived.

When I saw that the caches were naught but wooden stakes, my assumption was that the owner was either too cheap to provide real containers, or too lazy to provide real maintenance. Judging from Hans' comments on here, it's still a flip of the coin for me. Either attitude, taken to its logical conclusion, will likely result in those non-caches littering the environment for decades to come. Anyone who feels that rules/guidelines can be ignored when they are inconvenient is unlikely to follow the ones suggesting that they clean up after themselves.

 

Though I did find it funny that Hans tried spinning the environmental angle.

 

Yeah, we did let him off pretty easy with all the "film canisters and treated paper leak chemicals into Mother Earth" kind of stuff.

 

I wonder how he's taking the whole thing. Especially since he stated that not all of the caches were wooden stakes, although I'll bet most of them were.

 

Seriously, he should create his own game similar to Geocaching. Someone else did it in the past year and a half. And history shows if you make it "all about the numbers", they will come.

[+Manville Possum]

I kinda wish things had worked out better for Hans, and I could have replaced the cache with a 2x4.

I know you meant that as a joke, but it explains exactly why Groundspeak has that guideline. Otherwise every piece of wood, shard of pottery, empty gum wrapper, spent lottery ticket and sparkley rock would eventually become a geocache. I'd rather continue searching for ammo cans, Tupperware and pill bottles.

 

Yes, that was an attempt at humor. I have a listing that gets muggled often. I used to think it was kids in the park, but I'm quite sure that someone had to have the coordinates this time. Sorry, but it will be PMO when it is back up and running.

As far as Groundspeak? I moaned and complained alot in the past, but I'll gladly pay my $30 to use this site. $10 extra if they will add a "Ignore Users Listings" feature. Not a joke.

[+tozainamboku]

I kinda wish things had worked out better for Hans, and I could have replaced the cache with a 2x4.

I know you meant that as a joke, but it explains exactly why Groundspeak has that guideline. Otherwise every piece of wood, shard of pottery, empty gum wrapper, spent lottery ticket and sparkley rock would eventually become a geocache. I'd rather continue searching for ammo cans, Tupperware and pill bottles.

... plastic bags, paper cups, cardboard boxes, plastic bottles, and lots of things that meet the definition of containers. I've seen plenty of time someone helps out by leaving a new log in one of these things.

[+jellis]

Didn't we have a similar discussion with flat magnets? I recently found a cache that was a flat piece of plastic twizzle stick wedged between dirt and a post. It's hard to write on because of the plastic the ink can be easily rubbed off. I am tired of reporting these things. Like the buried cache the CO claimed to have permission to place in a city park, that after the CO disappeard all that was left was big hole in the ground.

[+jellis]

I haven't seen them online much anymore but I gave away a surveystake that had the top cut off and a hole drilled out so a bison could fit and the top fit snugly back together with the orange tape covering the cut. Those are allowed because they have a container inside.

 

The Hans issue is why they don't want caches that are not allowed out there (besides grandfathered ones). Cause cachers (mostly newbies who don't read the guidelines) that think it's a great idea and goes out and does the same thing and so on and so on.

That's why we have guidelines. And why we should let the reviewers or GC know when you see one.

Edited November 16, 2012 by jellis

[+hzoi]

I haven't seen them online much anymore but I gave away a surveystake that had the top cut off and a hole drilled out so a bison could fit and the top fit snugly back together with the orange tape covering the cut. Those are allowed because they have a container inside.

 

That satisfies the container requirement, but unless it's just a stake on the ground, isn't that going to violate the updated digging rule if it's placed like survey stakes are typically placed?

 

(I can't say I agree with the way the rule has been expanded, but that's not really the issue.)

[+niraD]

I haven't seen them online much anymore but I gave away a surveystake that had the top cut off and a hole drilled out so a bison could fit and the top fit snugly back together with the orange tape covering the cut. Those are allowed because they have a container inside.

That satisfies the container requirement, but unless it's just a stake on the ground, isn't that going to violate the updated digging rule if it's placed like survey stakes are typically placed?

That depends on how the survey stake is placed. If landscape bark or mulch is piled around it to support it (as I've seen done with sprinkler caches), then there is no hole and no digging. Or it could be attached to a horizontal board (like an upside-down T), and bark or mulch or dirt could cover the board.

[+hans415]

For all you naysayers that just sit on the forums and have about 500 total finds and 30,000 forum post, get out and find caches. You all want to sit in judgement and create situations that may or may not ever happen. You have no idea on what the Stakes were all about. Yes we had a multitude of different caches in the run and guess what, The run is back and running. Still has some stakes with something zip tied to it. oh yes it is UV zip ties so get off your high horse on that one. Other sites do accept Stakes as a viable cache so I was not that far off. You that never did the run missed out on a fun run that pleased everyone that did it. Now it has just become more or less a ho hum regular run with more GEOLITTER per guidelines. Now it will take 24 to 48 more hours to get the run done as it will slow them all down. You can sit here and surmise all day long about it, instead of getting out and actually finding a cache. You can joke and belittle on something you do not understand instead of actually going out and finding a cache. Yes you it is you I am referring to.

I have every motel and restaurant here very aware of the Cachers. Some even give a geocacher discounts when they are in town. It is and was a win win situation for everyone. The town and Newspaper has actually written about it and everyone in Yerington has heard about geocaching. Before I came here only a couple of Locals knew about geocaching now over 4000 people know something about it. I moved here to Yerington 11 months ago and there was only a handful of Geocaches in this Valley now there is 2000. All the Business owners know me by name and they all have thanked me for upping their business. I can walk into ace Hardware or tru Value Hardware and I am treated like I was a Savior for them. Yerington Inn gives a Geocacher a healthy discount if you mention you are a geocacher. Yeah I was a Bad guy that shot some happiness into a small town and help put it back on the map. So instead of sitting here on the forums and judging what you do not understand get out and find a cache.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

For all you naysayers that just sit on the forums and have about 500 total finds and 30,000 forum post, get out and find caches... You can joke and belittle on something you do not understand instead of actually going out and finding a cache. Yes you it is you I am referring to.

 

Considering the nature of your rant, I suppose I'm only inviting venom upon myself. Nevertheless, I would like to say that a thread about whether geocaching is or is not about the numbers was recently closed by a merciful moderator, who asked that the subject not come up again, soon. I happen to agree with that.

 

Some of us are not out finding caches because we're at home making caches. For some of us that takes a great deal of time and effort. For some of us, it's the planning. Some of us just like to get a cache here or there. That's how we enjoy the game. We're not all in a race to rack up finds, and I don't think one needs a four or five-digit find count to have a valid opinion on the game.

 

I can understand your frustration, to some extent. It can't be fun to be told your idea isn't accepted, and then you have to go out and exchange a heap of caches to fit someone else's idea of the game. Though, to be fair, it would have been even harder if you had crafted cleverly cammo'd containers and been told to change them to stakes, or if you spent months preparing such a container for a unique location, only to have a run of stakes get placed in your intended spot. The fact is that there must be boundaries to define any worthwhile game. You took your chance and pushed the limit, and it didn't work. Whenever you push the extremes or try something new, there's always the chance that you'll find out exactly why you've never seen it before, at least for this site, and it may not be because no one has ever thought of it before. People aren't going to feel sorry for you if you rant. The only thing to do is find another way to be innovative.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Stakes are not caches.

Neither are geology lessons - oh wait, it was decreed that they are so ... never mind!

[+roundnround we go]

Other sites do accept Stakes as a viable cache so I was not that far off. You that never did the run missed out on a fun run that pleased everyone that did it. Now it has just become more or less a ho hum regular run with more GEOLITTER per guidelines. Now it will take 24 to 48 more hours to get the run done as it will slow them all down. You can sit here and surmise all day long about it, instead of getting out and actually finding a cache. You can joke and belittle on something you do not understand instead of actually going out and finding a cache. Yes you it is you I am referring to.

 

 

Instead of ranting about people getting off their high horses and stating that stakes are fine on other listing sites, why didn't you just move your listings to one of those other sites you mentioned. while I will probably never get into power trails I realize that they have their place on this site as there are many that do enjoy them. But if they are going to be listed here they should conform to the guidelines put in place by this site, not some other site that accepts them. when you published your stake caches you checked the box that said you read and understood the guidelines so don't get upset when you were caught and told to conform to the guidelines you agreed to.

Edited December 1, 2012 by roundnround we go

[+Don_J]

For all you naysayers that just sit on the forums and have about 500 total finds and 30,000 forum post, get out and find caches. You all want to sit in judgement and create situations that may or may not ever happen. You have no idea on what the Stakes were all about. Yes we had a multitude of different caches in the run and guess what, The run is back and running. Still has some stakes with something zip tied to it. oh yes it is UV zip ties so get off your high horse on that one. Other sites do accept Stakes as a viable cache so I was not that far off. You that never did the run missed out on a fun run that pleased everyone that did it. Now it has just become more or less a ho hum regular run with more GEOLITTER per guidelines. Now it will take 24 to 48 more hours to get the run done as it will slow them all down. You can sit here and surmise all day long about it, instead of getting out and actually finding a cache. You can joke and belittle on something you do not understand instead of actually going out and finding a cache. Yes you it is you I am referring to.

I have every motel and restaurant here very aware of the Cachers. Some even give a geocacher discounts when they are in town. It is and was a win win situation for everyone. The town and Newspaper has actually written about it and everyone in Yerington has heard about geocaching. Before I came here only a couple of Locals knew about geocaching now over 4000 people know something about it. I moved here to Yerington 11 months ago and there was only a handful of Geocaches in this Valley now there is 2000. All the Business owners know me by name and they all have thanked me for upping their business. I can walk into ace Hardware or tru Value Hardware and I am treated like I was a Savior for them. Yerington Inn gives a Geocacher a healthy discount if you mention you are a geocacher. Yeah I was a Bad guy that shot some happiness into a small town and help put it back on the map. So instead of sitting here on the forums and judging what you do not understand get out and find a cache.

 

Do you walk on water too?

[+NeverSummer]

Other sites do accept Stakes as a viable cache so I was not that far off. You that never did the run missed out on a fun run that pleased everyone that did it. Now it has just become more or less a ho hum regular run with more GEOLITTER per guidelines. Now it will take 24 to 48 more hours to get the run done as it will slow them all down. You can sit here and surmise all day long about it, instead of getting out and actually finding a cache. You can joke and belittle on something you do not understand instead of actually going out and finding a cache. Yes you it is you I am referring to.

 

 

Instead of ranting about people getting off their high horses and stating that stakes are fine on other listing sites, why didn't you just move your listings to one of those other sites you mentioned. while I will probably never get into power I realize that they have their place on this site as there are many that do enjoy them. But if they are going to be listed here they should conform to the guidelines put in place by this site, not some other site that accepts them. when you published your stake caches you checked the box that said you read and understood the guidelines so don't get upset when you were caught and told to conform to the guidelines you agreed to.

Sorry, I'm a little late to this specific "discussion".

 

Seems to me that this issue with the stakes is clearly, based on hans415's comment above, putting convenience and numbers far above the priority of the guidelines. It is this kind of negligence that brings on the "numbers cachers are ____" threads.

 

While I can understand that geocaching is, indeed, what each of us make it to be (FTF games, Get-higher-numbers than-you games, etc), I don't understand how someone can blatantly ignore the guidelines of the Geocaching game they are playing just to support their non-sanctioned sub-game. If it takes longer to find caches that actually meet the guidelines, what's the problem? Convenience and number-boosting should never trump the guidelines.

 

Plus, isn't this all moot if the caches have been archived by TPTB due to the guideline dodging?

[RedShoesGirl]

What do you folks think of a piece of paper rolled up into a drink straw with camo tape?

 

really? you have to ask?