Does this just eat at you?

[+mobywv]

Eat at you? Really? Why would it eat at you? Perhaps you're just jealous that those caches are getting more favorite votes than yours? I recently found a cache that was nailed to a tree. The cache owner got permission from the property owner to place the cache. I enjoyed the cache, I gave it a favorite vote. Now if you want to be the cache police, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to make a lot of friends in the geocaching community.

It's this attitude that also makes it hard for cachers to want to report violations. As you see there are many here who support me on the issue. It's the bury your head in the sand or ignoring the guidelines is what hurts the geocaching community. I am not ignoring it or burying my head. I am just trying to avoid cachers who behave like you.

 

Avoid cachers who behave like me? You're the one who indirectly called out the cache owner on the forums. That was real classy on your part.

By another cacher the CO has been told to stop what he is doing. So how am I calling him out?

And why are you defending violations of guidelines

 

Listen, I've looked at your profile, you've found a lot of caches and equally impressive to me is that you maintain all your hides. You're obviously an asset to the community. I was just giving my point of view. I meant no offense. I've seen plenty of caches that break the guidelines. Unless I'm threatened by a landowner or there are clearly marked NO TRESPASSING signs, I won't make a big stink about it. The notable exception would be something stupid like a cache buried in the Walmart parking lot. But if it's just a minor violation aka nail in tree, I'll personally let it slide and the majority of other folks from my experience will as well. In your particular situation, I guess the area was park property? Perhaps I would report that. Where does it end, though? Should all LPCs be reported in your book because they lack permission? How bout sprinkler head caches? They are 'partially' buried. That's against the guidelines. no? Just my two cents.

[+Ambrosia]

I found a nice cache the other day...it had lots of favorite points but I refused to give it one because it had not one but two nails in the tree.

 

I will honestly say and have said it, I have found caches even that local WA reviewers have found that had huge nails in the trees or had huge recesses cut into a stump....and they are still there and with favorites. One of them I did inquire to a reviewer and was told the land manager said it was okay to put a hole in their tree so even though the tree was literally bleeding sap everywhere, it was fine. The one with the recess cut into it, I do not know about land manager on, but I imagine its county or state land.

 

As far as the one I just did, no reviewers have found it yet so perhas its something I could report, but I just implied I was dissatisfied in my log (without being blunt) and did not leave a favorite point. Can only control your own behavior.

I'm not going to make excuses, lamoracke, but I will try to explain a bit. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I have found caches that violated guidelines in some way or another. But because of either doing too many caches in a day, so I forget which one was buried (etc.), or I waited too long to log it and forgot later, things have slipped through my attention.

 

Also, sometimes I get too caught up in that dreaded worry about local cachers that I know, and put things off. I had that happen fairly recently. A local cacher who is well known for placing really cool hides puts nails/screws into trees. He's done this for as long as I can remember. I got in that habit of many years of not understanding that it was a problem, and when I did, I didn't want to make a big deal about it. Then, I think after a local CM, it came out and he was talked to about it. It was discussed openly in the NW forums. He was understandably upset that no one had mentioned to him that it was an issue, until it had became quite public. I had to apologize to him in the forums, and felt quite responsible.

 

I'm trying to learn from these mistakes.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Eat at you? Really? Why would it eat at you? Perhaps you're just jealous that those caches are getting more favorite votes than yours? I recently found a cache that was nailed to a tree. The cache owner got permission from the property owner to place the cache. I enjoyed the cache, I gave it a favorite vote. Now if you want to be the cache police, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to make a lot of friends in the geocaching community.

 

Cache police is not a term that should be used loosely. Reporting caches that clearly violate the guidelines and have the potential to get the activity banned, does not make one the cache police. It makes them responsible geocachers.

 

So tell me how a cache nailed to a tree will get the activity banned when the cache owner got explicit permission from the landowner to do so. I'm all ears.

 

A new geocacher finds a cache nailed to a tree. New cacher wants to place a cache, and based on the experience of finding a cache nailed to a tree, goes to the nearby town park and nails a container to a tree. A town maintenance worker encounters the container and notifies that town park manager that a container labeled as a geocache was nailed to a tree in a town park. Town park manager decides that geocachers are irresponsible and bans geocaching from all town parks.

 

Then there's the actual guideline:

 

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."

 

The guideline does not say that it's okay to damage or alter a tree if explicit permission has been given by the property owner.

[+6NoisyHikers]

My two cents (if we're all throwing pennies into the pile) is that I want to continue to be able to legally place caches in my local parks. If land managers believe that geocachers won't be responsible with this generous arrangement, they have the power to stop all cache placements in those areas.

 

A small nail on private property can lead to a big nail in a protected forest because there are plenty of people out there who don't read the guidelines. So Groundspeak says: No damage to the natural environment no matter what. If we want to protect this game/hobby/lifestyle then it is up to us to make sure we are good stewards of geocaching.

 

People who place caches outside of the guidelines are making a statement. A - I think I'm too smart to read your silly guidelines, or B - I've read your silly guidelines and decided they don't apply to me. Either way, it is rude and inconsiderate - no wonder they go on the defensive when someone questions their actions.

 

So, to get back on topic: Jellis, I agree completely with the inner turmoil you feel about reporting some caches. I'm torn as well and I think that all I can do is take it on a cache by cache basis, keeping the best interests of geocaching in mind.

[+NeverSummer]

Eat at you? Really? Why would it eat at you? Perhaps you're just jealous that those caches are getting more favorite votes than yours? I recently found a cache that was nailed to a tree. The cache owner got permission from the property owner to place the cache. I enjoyed the cache, I gave it a favorite vote. Now if you want to be the cache police, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to make a lot of friends in the geocaching community.

 

Cache police is not a term that should be used loosely. Reporting caches that clearly violate the guidelines and have the potential to get the activity banned, does not make one the cache police. It makes them responsible geocachers.

 

So tell me how a cache nailed to a tree will get the activity banned when the cache owner got explicit permission from the landowner to do so. I'm all ears.

 

A new geocacher finds a cache nailed to a tree. New cacher wants to place a cache, and based on the experience of finding a cache nailed to a tree, goes to the nearby town park and nails a container to a tree. A town maintenance worker encounters the container and notifies that town park manager that a container labeled as a geocache was nailed to a tree in a town park. Town park manager decides that geocachers are irresponsible and bans geocaching from all town parks.

 

Then there's the actual guideline:

 

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."

 

The guideline does not say that it's okay to damage or alter a tree if explicit permission has been given by the property owner.

^This.

 

However, as they are guidelines, if express permission has been given by a proper authority, why couldn't a "birdhouse hide" be ok? My only thought on this is that the cache page should mention, explicitly, that there were proper permissions to "hide this type of geocache". I used to see more "birdhouse" caches, but now many Reviewers will not publish them. So goes the dynamic change of geocaching guideline interpretation.

 

Next will come the bellyaching from some that a clear disclaimer like that will give up the so-called integrity of their so-called witty hide idea if "forced" to put said disclaimer on the cache page.

 

All this to say, if exceptions to the guidelines aren't allowed to be handled on a case-by-case basis, would we lose some of the hides that were once allowed? Perhaps this is another reason why a log type "Needs Reviewer Attention" is necessary. If a cache appears to break a guideline, a "NM" is a good log choice for some, and a "NA" another. However, the fact that a NM log does not automatically notify a Reviewer that there is an issue, many cache issues slip out of view. A NA log can, and usually will, cause some angst between the poster and owner. A "Needs Reviewer Attention" log would be a perfect way to say, "Hey, this cache appears to be against the guidelines, but isn't as big a deal like RR tracks, private property, looks like a bomb, etc, and therefore may not warrant an Archival..."

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Eat at you? Really? Why would it eat at you? Perhaps you're just jealous that those caches are getting more favorite votes than yours? I recently found a cache that was nailed to a tree. The cache owner got permission from the property owner to place the cache. I enjoyed the cache, I gave it a favorite vote. Now if you want to be the cache police, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to make a lot of friends in the geocaching community.

 

Cache police is not a term that should be used loosely. Reporting caches that clearly violate the guidelines and have the potential to get the activity banned, does not make one the cache police. It makes them responsible geocachers.

 

So tell me how a cache nailed to a tree will get the activity banned when the cache owner got explicit permission from the landowner to do so. I'm all ears.

 

Did the cache owner get explicit permission to nail a cache to a tree or explicit permission to hide a cache? Getting permission doesn't give you carte blanche to hide a cache in a way that violates a guideline.

[+NeverSummer]

Eat at you? Really? Why would it eat at you? Perhaps you're just jealous that those caches are getting more favorite votes than yours? I recently found a cache that was nailed to a tree. The cache owner got permission from the property owner to place the cache. I enjoyed the cache, I gave it a favorite vote. Now if you want to be the cache police, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to make a lot of friends in the geocaching community.

 

Cache police is not a term that should be used loosely. Reporting caches that clearly violate the guidelines and have the potential to get the activity banned, does not make one the cache police. It makes them responsible geocachers.

 

So tell me how a cache nailed to a tree will get the activity banned when the cache owner got explicit permission from the landowner to do so. I'm all ears.

 

Did the cache owner get explicit permission to nail a cache to a tree or explicit permission to hide a cache? Getting permission doesn't give you carte blanche to hide a cache in a way that violates a guideline.

True. But it does bring the Reviewing of said geocache to a different level of review. Perhaps we can just sit here and guess how that example would be interpreted in an appeal process to Geocaching.com? My guess is that it would warrant a second look, and certainly could lead to a published, allowed geocache.

[+J the Goat]

Eat at you? Really? Why would it eat at you? Perhaps you're just jealous that those caches are getting more favorite votes than yours? I recently found a cache that was nailed to a tree. The cache owner got permission from the property owner to place the cache. I enjoyed the cache, I gave it a favorite vote. Now if you want to be the cache police, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to make a lot of friends in the geocaching community.

It's this attitude that also makes it hard for cachers to want to report violations. As you see there are many here who support me on the issue. It's the bury your head in the sand or ignoring the guidelines is what hurts the geocaching community. I am not ignoring it or burying my head. I am just trying to avoid cachers who behave like you.

 

Avoid cachers who behave like me? You're the one who indirectly called out the cache owner on the forums. That was real classy on your part.

By another cacher the CO has been told to stop what he is doing. So how am I calling him out?

And why are you defending violations of guidelines

 

Listen, I've looked at your profile, you've found a lot of caches and equally impressive to me is that you maintain all your hides. You're obviously an asset to the community. I was just giving my point of view. I meant no offense. I've seen plenty of caches that break the guidelines. Unless I'm threatened by a landowner or there are clearly marked NO TRESPASSING signs, I won't make a big stink about it. The notable exception would be something stupid like a cache buried in the Walmart parking lot. But if it's just a minor violation aka nail in tree, I'll personally let it slide and the majority of other folks from my experience will as well. In your particular situation, I guess the area was park property? Perhaps I would report that. Where does it end, though? Should all LPCs be reported in your book because they lack permission? How bout sprinkler head caches? They are 'partially' buried. That's against the guidelines. no? Just my two cents.

 

My answer to both those questions is yes, with the exception of LPC's that have proper permission of course.

[+jellis]

...Drilling a hole into a live tree, especially a protected species, is on the other hand a fairly obvious no-no...

 

how do you know if it is a protected species or not?

Because I mentioned how we reported one on a redwood tree in a national forest.

[+J the Goat]

And I just re-read the bolded statement above. I think they should be ARCHIVED if no permission has been granted. I don't check to see if every LPC I drive by has permission granted, that WOULD be playing cache cop. Blatant guideline violations are different though, like nails into trees or buried caches. If I find out that an LPC doesn't have express permission, then it gets reported too.

[+J the Goat]

...Drilling a hole into a live tree, especially a protected species, is on the other hand a fairly obvious no-no...

 

how do you know if it is a protected species or not?

Because I mentioned how we reported one on a redwood tree in a national forest.

 

Either way, it doesn't matter. Protected or not, it's against the guidelines.

[+mobywv]

Eat at you? Really? Why would it eat at you? Perhaps you're just jealous that those caches are getting more favorite votes than yours? I recently found a cache that was nailed to a tree. The cache owner got permission from the property owner to place the cache. I enjoyed the cache, I gave it a favorite vote. Now if you want to be the cache police, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to make a lot of friends in the geocaching community.

 

Cache police is not a term that should be used loosely. Reporting caches that clearly violate the guidelines and have the potential to get the activity banned, does not make one the cache police. It makes them responsible geocachers.

 

So tell me how a cache nailed to a tree will get the activity banned when the cache owner got explicit permission from the landowner to do so. I'm all ears.

 

A new geocacher finds a cache nailed to a tree. New cacher wants to place a cache, and based on the experience of finding a cache nailed to a tree, goes to the nearby town park and nails a container to a tree. A town maintenance worker encounters the container and notifies that town park manager that a container labeled as a geocache was nailed to a tree in a town park. Town park manager decides that geocachers are irresponsible and bans geocaching from all town parks.

 

Then there's the actual guideline:

 

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."

 

The guideline does not say that it's okay to damage or alter a tree if explicit permission has been given by the property owner.

 

So how is it that fire tacks are allowed for night caches? Cause tacks might not be as bad as nails, but I'm sure they can't be good.

If Groundspeak wanted there to be no objects nailed or forced into trees, why not just come out and say it?

[+jellis]

protected

Edited December 12, 2012 by jellis

[+jellis]

Eat at you? Really? Why would it eat at you? Perhaps you're just jealous that those caches are getting more favorite votes than yours? I recently found a cache that was nailed to a tree. The cache owner got permission from the property owner to place the cache. I enjoyed the cache, I gave it a favorite vote. Now if you want to be the cache police, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to make a lot of friends in the geocaching community.

 

Cache police is not a term that should be used loosely. Reporting caches that clearly violate the guidelines and have the potential to get the activity banned, does not make one the cache police. It makes them responsible geocachers.

 

So tell me how a cache nailed to a tree will get the activity banned when the cache owner got explicit permission from the landowner to do so. I'm all ears.

 

A new geocacher finds a cache nailed to a tree. New cacher wants to place a cache, and based on the experience of finding a cache nailed to a tree, goes to the nearby town park and nails a container to a tree. A town maintenance worker encounters the container and notifies that town park manager that a container labeled as a geocache was nailed to a tree in a town park. Town park manager decides that geocachers are irresponsible and bans geocaching from all town parks.

 

Then there's the actual guideline:

 

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."

 

The guideline does not say that it's okay to damage or alter a tree if explicit permission has been given by the property owner.

 

So how is it that fire tacks are allowed for night caches? Cause tacks might not be as bad as nails, but I'm sure they can't be good.

If Groundspeak wanted there to be no objects nailed or forced into trees, why not just come out and say it?

Fire tracks only go as far as the bark in most trees and not into the heart of the tree

[+Frank Broughton]

. Should I report them?

 

NO

[RedShoesGirl]

...Drilling a hole into a live tree, especially a protected species, is on the other hand a fairly obvious no-no...

 

how do you know if it is a protected species or not?

Because I mentioned how we reported one on a redwood tree in a national forest.

 

my point was there are a variety of protected species and i don't think most geocachers don't know which is which. i agree with the guidelines that say don't drill holes in trees, protected or not. i think you did good by reporting the one in the redwood tree.

Edited December 12, 2012 by RedShoesGirl

[AZcachemeister]

About a month ago I was FTF on a cache where the CO dug a hole in a public park to 'install' an irrigation valve box which held their 'cleverly camo'ed' cache.

 

I waited until a few others had found it, hoping someone would at least raise an eyebrow...nada.

 

So, I emailed the reviewer stating the cache is buried.

Nothing has happened.

My conscience is clear.

[+Roman!]

About a month ago I was FTF on a cache where the CO dug a hole in a public park to 'install' an irrigation valve box which held their 'cleverly camo'ed' cache.

 

I waited until a few others had found it, hoping someone would at least raise an eyebrow...nada.

 

So, I emailed the reviewer stating the cache is buried.

Nothing has happened.

My conscience is clear.

 

Did you see him dig the hole or did he state somwhere he dug the hole? If not, how do you know the hole was not already there?

[+NeverSummer]

About a month ago I was FTF on a cache where the CO dug a hole in a public park to 'install' an irrigation valve box which held their 'cleverly camo'ed' cache.

 

I waited until a few others had found it, hoping someone would at least raise an eyebrow...nada.

 

So, I emailed the reviewer stating the cache is buried.

Nothing has happened.

My conscience is clear.

 

Did you see him dig the hole or did he state somwhere he dug the hole? If not, how do you know the hole was not already there?

If it looks like X and smells like X, it might as well be X. Let the NA log notify the Reviewer, and then the owner and Reviewer can sort it all out about chicken and egg discussions. There's nothing wrong with using the tools we have been provided to deal with caches that might be against the guidelines.

[+jellis]

. Should I report them?

 

NO

I think the majority says YES. That is the reason it should be but hoping someone else does so I won't.

[+Roman!]

About a month ago I was FTF on a cache where the CO dug a hole in a public park to 'install' an irrigation valve box which held their 'cleverly camo'ed' cache.

 

I waited until a few others had found it, hoping someone would at least raise an eyebrow...nada.

 

So, I emailed the reviewer stating the cache is buried.

Nothing has happened.

My conscience is clear.

 

Did you see him dig the hole or did he state somwhere he dug the hole? If not, how do you know the hole was not already there?

If it looks like X and smells like X, it might as well be X. Let the NA log notify the Reviewer, and then the owner and Reviewer can sort it all out about chicken and egg discussions. There's nothing wrong with using the tools we have been provided to deal with caches that might be against the guidelines.

 

I'd sure like to know how you can tell the difference between a hole dug by geocacher and one dug by someone or something else. Parks have thousands if not millions of preexisting holes.

 

As for the difference in smell, I really do not want to know.

[+NeverSummer]

About a month ago I was FTF on a cache where the CO dug a hole in a public park to 'install' an irrigation valve box which held their 'cleverly camo'ed' cache.

 

I waited until a few others had found it, hoping someone would at least raise an eyebrow...nada.

 

So, I emailed the reviewer stating the cache is buried.

Nothing has happened.

My conscience is clear.

 

Did you see him dig the hole or did he state somwhere he dug the hole? If not, how do you know the hole was not already there?

If it looks like X and smells like X, it might as well be X. Let the NA log notify the Reviewer, and then the owner and Reviewer can sort it all out about chicken and egg discussions. There's nothing wrong with using the tools we have been provided to deal with caches that might be against the guidelines.

 

I'd sure like to know how you can tell the difference between a hole dug by geocacher and one dug by someone or something else. Parks have thousands if not millions of preexisting holes.

 

As for the difference in smell, I really do not want to know.

Um, by asking the owner directly.

[4wheelin_fool]

. Should I report them?

 

NO

I think the majority says YES. That is the reason it should be but hoping someone else does so I won't.

The majority in here may say yes, although local results will vary..

 

I suppose there are many that are shortsighted, and do not really care if any new geocache bans or regulations develop.

 

To violate the guidelines is openly disrespectful of the listing site, Groundspeak, and is also disrespectful of land managers. All that is asked is that caches do not create permanent damage, or any sign of its existence once they are archived. Digging holes hammering nails, drilling holes, are all completely unneccessary to hide a creative cache. The ultimate question is : When the land manager finds out what is going on in his area behind his back, will he be impressed? Or think we are a bunch of disrespectful anuses? When there are new policies enacted and fees for hiding caches, it seems to be the latter.

[+jellis]

I can't remember which one Jeremy or Moun10bike or some Lackey said something like "if you were to archive your cache and removed the container, would there be any evidence that there was ever a cache there?"

I agree if you follow that then there shouldn't be any issue.

Now notice I said shouldn't not wouldn't

[+Sol seaker]

o

You know that you can wait a bit, and then report them privately to a Reviewer.

 

Why wait, if you feel it should be reported go for it. If not, move on with your life. Why be cowardly about it?

 

Well, I was just giving her a bit of an out if she's really worried about repercussions. It's harder for some people to cause waves. I understand, I don't like people being upset at me. I posted a needs archived on a cache recently, because the property owner stopped me and was quite upset about the cache. A few people posted notes to the cache page when it was archived, and it made me feel bad. I know that I wasn't the cause of the cache archival ultimately, it was a permission issue, but I still felt guilty.

I've never understood the mentality of blaming the person who logs the NA as the reason a problem cache was archived. If a cache is in violation of the guidelines and gets archived, that's the cache owners fault, not the person reporting the issue.

 

Personally, I feel that every cache owner should be able to stand behind every one of their caches. Not reporting caches that go against the guidelines makes the situation worse, not better. As you've seen, jellis, because of the praise he's recieved, this cache owner is going to keep placing these caches that violate guidelines simply because noone has done the right thing and reported them. If he really is that creative, he can figure out how to create these caches and stay within the boundries of the guidelines.

Well, to be fair, I don't think that anything was directed at me, specifically. It just doesn't take much to make me stress about how people perceive me.

 

I posted a question on this forum and as a result a webcam cache was archived, I did feel bad but it wasn't my fault and should have been done long ago.

Yeah, it happens. Can't let it stop us from doing the right thing.

 

Actually I DIDN'T report a partially buried cache and felt bad about it later. I realized it made me look bad to the reviewers, which is worse than looking bad to other cachers.

[+Ambrosia]

o

You know that you can wait a bit, and then report them privately to a Reviewer.

 

Why wait, if you feel it should be reported go for it. If not, move on with your life. Why be cowardly about it?

 

Well, I was just giving her a bit of an out if she's really worried about repercussions. It's harder for some people to cause waves. I understand, I don't like people being upset at me. I posted a needs archived on a cache recently, because the property owner stopped me and was quite upset about the cache. A few people posted notes to the cache page when it was archived, and it made me feel bad. I know that I wasn't the cause of the cache archival ultimately, it was a permission issue, but I still felt guilty.

I've never understood the mentality of blaming the person who logs the NA as the reason a problem cache was archived. If a cache is in violation of the guidelines and gets archived, that's the cache owners fault, not the person reporting the issue.

 

Personally, I feel that every cache owner should be able to stand behind every one of their caches. Not reporting caches that go against the guidelines makes the situation worse, not better. As you've seen, jellis, because of the praise he's recieved, this cache owner is going to keep placing these caches that violate guidelines simply because noone has done the right thing and reported them. If he really is that creative, he can figure out how to create these caches and stay within the boundries of the guidelines.

Well, to be fair, I don't think that anything was directed at me, specifically. It just doesn't take much to make me stress about how people perceive me.

 

I posted a question on this forum and as a result a webcam cache was archived, I did feel bad but it wasn't my fault and should have been done long ago.

Yeah, it happens. Can't let it stop us from doing the right thing.

 

Actually I DIDN'T report a partially buried cache and felt bad about it later. I realized it made me look bad to the reviewers, which is worse than looking bad to other cachers.

We all make mistakes, we just need to try to do better in the future!

[+Roman!]

o

You know that you can wait a bit, and then report them privately to a Reviewer.

 

Why wait, if you feel it should be reported go for it. If not, move on with your life. Why be cowardly about it?

 

Well, I was just giving her a bit of an out if she's really worried about repercussions. It's harder for some people to cause waves. I understand, I don't like people being upset at me. I posted a needs archived on a cache recently, because the property owner stopped me and was quite upset about the cache. A few people posted notes to the cache page when it was archived, and it made me feel bad. I know that I wasn't the cause of the cache archival ultimately, it was a permission issue, but I still felt guilty.

I've never understood the mentality of blaming the person who logs the NA as the reason a problem cache was archived. If a cache is in violation of the guidelines and gets archived, that's the cache owners fault, not the person reporting the issue.

 

Personally, I feel that every cache owner should be able to stand behind every one of their caches. Not reporting caches that go against the guidelines makes the situation worse, not better. As you've seen, jellis, because of the praise he's recieved, this cache owner is going to keep placing these caches that violate guidelines simply because noone has done the right thing and reported them. If he really is that creative, he can figure out how to create these caches and stay within the boundries of the guidelines.

Well, to be fair, I don't think that anything was directed at me, specifically. It just doesn't take much to make me stress about how people perceive me.

 

I posted a question on this forum and as a result a webcam cache was archived, I did feel bad but it wasn't my fault and should have been done long ago.

Yeah, it happens. Can't let it stop us from doing the right thing.

 

Actually I DIDN'T report a partially buried cache and felt bad about it later. I realized it made me look bad to the reviewers, which is worse than looking bad to other cachers.

We all make mistakes, we just need to try to do better in the future!

 

You mean try to make better mistakes in the future

[+Ambrosia]

o

You know that you can wait a bit, and then report them privately to a Reviewer.

 

Why wait, if you feel it should be reported go for it. If not, move on with your life. Why be cowardly about it?

 

Well, I was just giving her a bit of an out if she's really worried about repercussions. It's harder for some people to cause waves. I understand, I don't like people being upset at me. I posted a needs archived on a cache recently, because the property owner stopped me and was quite upset about the cache. A few people posted notes to the cache page when it was archived, and it made me feel bad. I know that I wasn't the cause of the cache archival ultimately, it was a permission issue, but I still felt guilty.

I've never understood the mentality of blaming the person who logs the NA as the reason a problem cache was archived. If a cache is in violation of the guidelines and gets archived, that's the cache owners fault, not the person reporting the issue.

 

Personally, I feel that every cache owner should be able to stand behind every one of their caches. Not reporting caches that go against the guidelines makes the situation worse, not better. As you've seen, jellis, because of the praise he's recieved, this cache owner is going to keep placing these caches that violate guidelines simply because noone has done the right thing and reported them. If he really is that creative, he can figure out how to create these caches and stay within the boundries of the guidelines.

Well, to be fair, I don't think that anything was directed at me, specifically. It just doesn't take much to make me stress about how people perceive me.

 

I posted a question on this forum and as a result a webcam cache was archived, I did feel bad but it wasn't my fault and should have been done long ago.

Yeah, it happens. Can't let it stop us from doing the right thing.

 

Actually I DIDN'T report a partially buried cache and felt bad about it later. I realized it made me look bad to the reviewers, which is worse than looking bad to other cachers.

We all make mistakes, we just need to try to do better in the future!

 

You mean try to make better mistakes in the future

I'll do my best.

[+jellis]

Okay I brought this up many times. I reported a cache in a city park when a new cacher dug a hole and buried a cache next to a redwood tree. The reviewer archived it, then unarchived it and said they had permission. Well a few months later the CO disappeared and the cache lid disappeared and it filled partially with mud. Then the cache disappeared and a big hole in the ground remained. Of course eventually the groundskeepers had to fill the hole up. So the permission didn't matter if the CO stopped caring.

Ok I know some of you are wondering why I didn't clean it up while I was watching it. Because if the CO came back I didn't want to be accused of messing with it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

And I just re-read the bolded statement above. I think they should be ARCHIVED if no permission has been granted. I don't check to see if every LPC I drive by has permission granted, that WOULD be playing cache cop. Blatant guideline violations are different though, like nails into trees or buried caches. If I find out that an LPC doesn't have express permission, then it gets reported too.

 

There certainly have been examples posted here where someone was looking for a LPC cache and was questioned by mall security. In some cases like this explicit permission may have obtained at some point, but that information was not communicated to everyone that might see someone lifting up a lamp post skirt. That could include employees at any of the business in a mall, mall security, and even anyone shopping at the mall. Sometimes a cache can adhere to the guidelines but reporting it would stop subjecting innocent geocachers from the "wrath of mallcop".

[Clan Riffster]

To me, there are degrees of violations, and my reaction will be based accordingly. If, in my experience, a violation is so severe as to potentially cause problems for future seekers, or have a negative impact on the game itself, it gets reported. If I perceive it as only a technical violation, which will have no effect on anyone, I'll log it, make a mental note to discuss my concerns with the cache owner, and move on.

[AZcachemeister]

About a month ago I was FTF on a cache where the CO dug a hole in a public park to 'install' an irrigation valve box which held their 'cleverly camo'ed' cache.

 

I waited until a few others had found it, hoping someone would at least raise an eyebrow...nada.

 

So, I emailed the reviewer stating the cache is buried.

Nothing has happened.

My conscience is clear.

 

Did you see him dig the hole or did he state somwhere he dug the hole? If not, how do you know the hole was not already there?

 

Believe it or not, but I can tell a hole that was dug a day or two ago from one that has been there for months.

[Andronicus]

We are not talking about the cache you found. Though that one could still give cachers ideas it's okay to do it and will start carving, drilling, nailing and screwing into trees. That makes the trees weak and vulnerable to parasites and diseases. So basically they killing the trees even with permission.

That may be a bit of an exaggeration. A single scree in an oak tree would neither weaken not make it vulnerable. But nonetheless, it is the guideline.

Yep, and regardless of the reality (cf Hungry Trees), the perception of geocachers damaging trees can get geocaching banned by some land managers.

You should see the rules we have to deal with here in Calgary now. Some city parks person saw a sign nailed to a tree, and thought it was related to geocaching (I don't know if it was or not). Now they are inforcing a bi-law that prevent placing or attaching anything in a city tree. It is a $300 or $500 fine.

[Andronicus]

Okay I brought this up many times. I reported a cache in a city park when a new cacher dug a hole and buried a cache next to a redwood tree. The reviewer archived it, then unarchived it and said they had permission. Well a few months later the CO disappeared and the cache lid disappeared and it filled partially with mud. Then the cache disappeared and a big hole in the ground remained. Of course eventually the groundskeepers had to fill the hole up. So the permission didn't matter if the CO stopped caring.

Ok I know some of you are wondering why I didn't clean it up while I was watching it. Because if the CO came back I didn't want to be accused of messing with it.

That is a crazy storie. I wonder if the reviewer was acting based on discussions in the reviewer forum, instruction from GS, or just his/her gut feel?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

About a month ago I was FTF on a cache where the CO dug a hole in a public park to 'install' an irrigation valve box which held their 'cleverly camo'ed' cache.

 

I waited until a few others had found it, hoping someone would at least raise an eyebrow...nada.

 

So, I emailed the reviewer stating the cache is buried.

Nothing has happened.

My conscience is clear.

 

Did you see him dig the hole or did he state somwhere he dug the hole? If not, how do you know the hole was not already there?

 

Believe it or not, but I can tell a hole that was dug a day or two ago from one that has been there for months.

 

Especially when the box fits perfectly in said hole.

[+Castle Mischief]

You know that you can wait a bit, and then report them privately to a Reviewer.

 

Why wait, if you feel it should be reported go for it. If not, move on with your life. Why be cowardly about it?

 

That's hardly cowardly, more like practical. I have caches that I've hidden that I don't want somebody trashing because I posted a Needs Archived note on the cache page. It's that simple.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Castle Mischief

[+Dan2099]

A nail or screw in a tree does not harm it and is not against the rules. I have seen barbed wire fences that were nailed to a tree years ago and the tree just grows around it. This very website sales tacs that you nail in trees....

 

As far as digging or placing things underground that's a gray area because if you want to get specific I have seen many fake sprinkler heads that are in the ground but that's a widely accepted form of hiding... Here in kentucky I can point you to a few hidden far underneath ground in deep caves...basically in my opinion as long as the hider of the cache was upfront with the reviewer and it was published there should be no complaints.

 

If you are still bothered do not hunt those cachers hides.

[4wheelin_fool]

A nail or screw in a tree does not harm it and is not against the rules. I have seen barbed wire fences that were nailed to a tree years ago and the tree just grows around it. This very website sales tacs that you nail in trees....

 

Spray painting trees does not harm them either, but yes, it is against the rules for the same reason.

Edited December 12, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+niraD]

As far as digging or placing things underground that's a gray area because if you want to get specific I have seen many fake sprinkler heads that are in the ground but that's a widely accepted form of hiding... Here in kentucky I can point you to a few hidden far underneath ground in deep caves...basically in my opinion as long as the hider of the cache was upfront with the reviewer and it was published there should be no complaints.

For the record, the issue isn't caches that are underground. (I've found caches that were below grade too.)

 

The issue is caches that require digging or creating a hole in the ground (either to hide or to find).

[+DragonsWest]

There is a side issue, to this concern of "leave no trace" which I have brought up from time to time with COs and occasionally they have archived or moved their caches in response.

 

This being the destruction of the environment near the cache, due to the traffic. One was placed near a nature preserve, behind a bush, down a bank. The Geotrail had greatly eroded the soft sandstone of the bank and clearly had mowed down plants around the bush. The cache was archived about 5 years ago, though the damage can still be seen.

 

Placing a cache requires more thought than not modifying the location to suit the hide, but considering what impact people visiting the cache will have.

 

Requiring finders to climb a lose embankment, which will in due course be greatly damaged is far more severe than a screw in a tree or a hole in the ground.

 

I hope everyone does their most to consider this when hiding caches.

[+jellis]

A nail or screw in a tree does not harm it and is not against the rules. I have seen barbed wire fences that were nailed to a tree years ago and the tree just grows around it. This very website sales tacs that you nail in trees....

 

As far as digging or placing things underground that's a gray area because if you want to get specific I have seen many fake sprinkler heads that are in the ground but that's a widely accepted form of hiding... Here in kentucky I can point you to a few hidden far underneath ground in deep caves...basically in my opinion as long as the hider of the cache was upfront with the reviewer and it was published there should be no complaints.

 

If you are still bothered do not hunt those cachers hides.

The difference is that in these cases it wasn't a cacher who did it just to hide a cache. Whether it does or doesn't damage a tree. Have you looked at trees or telephone poles or city property with damage because of vandals? Do we want a reputation as cachers who vandalize to hide a cache?

[+Dan2099]

A nail or screw in a tree does not harm it and is not against the rules. I have seen barbed wire fences that were nailed to a tree years ago and the tree just grows around it. This very website sales tacs that you nail in trees....

 

Spray painting trees does not harm them either, but yes, it is against the rules for the same reason.

 

Show me the rule where it specifically states no nails in trees.

[+Don_J]

A nail or screw in a tree does not harm it and is not against the rules. I have seen barbed wire fences that were nailed to a tree years ago and the tree just grows around it. This very website sales tacs that you nail in trees....

 

As far as digging or placing things underground that's a gray area because if you want to get specific I have seen many fake sprinkler heads that are in the ground but that's a widely accepted form of hiding... Here in kentucky I can point you to a few hidden far underneath ground in deep caves...basically in my opinion as long as the hider of the cache was upfront with the reviewer and it was published there should be no complaints.

 

If you are still bothered do not hunt those cachers hides.

 

Thankfully, you haven't hidden any caches. If in the future you decide to do so, I suggest that you read all of the guidelines very carefully.

[+niraD]

Show me the rule where it specifically states no nails in trees.

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.

[+Dan2099]

Show me the rule where it specifically states no nails in trees.

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.

 

Again nails do not damage or kill trees, if you like I can provide many examples of this. That's your interpretation of a rule it does not specifically state no nails in trees.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Dan2099

[+Dan2099]

A nail or screw in a tree does not harm it and is not against the rules. I have seen barbed wire fences that were nailed to a tree years ago and the tree just grows around it. This very website sales tacs that you nail in trees....

 

As far as digging or placing things underground that's a gray area because if you want to get specific I have seen many fake sprinkler heads that are in the ground but that's a widely accepted form of hiding... Here in kentucky I can point you to a few hidden far underneath ground in deep caves...basically in my opinion as long as the hider of the cache was upfront with the reviewer and it was published there should be no complaints.

 

If you are still bothered do not hunt those cachers hides.

 

Thankfully, you haven't hidden any caches. If in the future you decide to do so, I suggest that you read all of the guidelines very carefully.

 

Again no such rule, I suggest you stop making up things that may confuse cachers.

[+niraD]

That's your interpretation of a rule it does not specifically state no nails in trees.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have general guidelines like "do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property" or "[do not] dig or create a hole in the ground". I am bewildered by the idea that anyone would want guidelines that specify every kind of prohibited damage, defacement, destruction, digging, hole creation, etc., etc., etc.

[+Castle Mischief]

Show me the rule where it specifically states no nails in trees.

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.

 

Again nails do not damage or kill trees, if you like I can provide many examples of this. That's your interpretation of a rule it does not specifically state no nails in trees.

 

Destruction and defacement is in the eye of the tree owner. If you don't own the tree you don't get to make that call.

 

And then there's this in the quote above as well:

 

Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

[knowschad]

Show me the rule where it specifically states no nails in trees.

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.

 

Again nails do not damage or kill trees, if you like I can provide many examples of this. That's your interpretation of a rule it does not specifically state no nails in trees.

 

Dan,

 

Nobody said that nails damage trees. Let go of that. Land managers often do not like people putting nails into their trees, thus the guideline. We had an entire community near me that wasn't able to hide caches in any of the city parks for several years because a land manager found a fake birdhouse nailed to a tree. I am 100% in agreement with you that nails don't harm trees (see my Hungry Trees thread) but that is not the point.

[knowschad]

A nail or screw in a tree does not harm it and is not against the rules. I have seen barbed wire fences that were nailed to a tree years ago and the tree just grows around it. This very website sales tacs that you nail in trees....

 

As far as digging or placing things underground that's a gray area because if you want to get specific I have seen many fake sprinkler heads that are in the ground but that's a widely accepted form of hiding... Here in kentucky I can point you to a few hidden far underneath ground in deep caves...basically in my opinion as long as the hider of the cache was upfront with the reviewer and it was published there should be no complaints.

 

If you are still bothered do not hunt those cachers hides.

 

Thankfully, you haven't hidden any caches. If in the future you decide to do so, I suggest that you read all of the guidelines very carefully.

 

Again no such rule, I suggest you stop making up things that may confuse cachers.

 

Yes, there is such a rule. You are the one confusing cachers. Go ahead... hide a cache and tell the reviewer that you put a nail in a tree to hide your cache. See what happens. In fact, don't even bother hiding a cache... you'll just have to go and pick it up after it is refused publication anyway. Just create the cache page and drop a reviewer's note about the nail.