Does this just eat at you?

December 12, 2012

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.

A nail does not damage nor deface a tree, again let me point out this very website sales tree tacs which are nails. So why would they say no nails yet sale them? Saying a nail damages a tree is like saying a ear piercing kills the ear. It really bugs me people say "No there is a rule against that or this" when there is no such rule.

The guidelines are just that guidelines and they are not as strict or rigid as rules. Anything can be argued and debated if you look hard enough. If you want to be extremely strict they have the word "alter" by placing a ammo can on the ground in the woods, you have technically altered the environment therefore you broke the guidelines.

5k · December 12, 2012

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.

If I have made a personal decision that carving coordinates into a tree with a chain saw will not damage the tree, should I just go ahead and do it?

December 12, 2012

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.

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

December 12, 2012

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.

I have always had a problem with the breadth of that statement. I feel that it is stressed to the letter for somethings and yet miraculously allowed/underdstood with respect to other things. How does anyone hide a hollowed out log/stump our a drilled out rock? Aren't those property? How does anyone make a hide with old soda bottles, didn't they belong to someone? Their defacement will be permanent in most cases. I find that although we can deface things to create a cool camo or hide we aren't allowed to touch the surrounding area although we may have permissio/ownership to do so? That has always felt a little hypocritical to me.

December 12, 2012

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.

I have always had a problem with the breadth of that statement. I feel that it is stressed to the letter for somethings and yet miraculously allowed/underdstood with respect to other things. How does anyone hide a hollowed out log/stump our a drilled out rock? Aren't those property? How does anyone make a hide with old soda bottles, didn't they belong to someone? Their defacement will be permanent in most cases. I find that although we can deface things to create a cool camo or hide we aren't allowed to touch the surrounding area although we may have permissio/ownership to do so? That has always felt a little hypocritical to me.

My point exactly when placing any type of hide you have altered the environment so to say its okay for this but not for that is extremely irritating.

December 12, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

3.4k · December 12, 2012

I think the tree's point of view is missing in this discussion.

Who owns the tree?

Is it a public tree or on private property? If it is on private property and is your own property you may possibly do as you wish, though there have been incidents of endangered trees being purposefully nailed with copper nails by property owners to get rid of them against a prohibition by civil statute protecting it.

If the tree is in a city, state or national park you might wish to get permission, lest find yourself classified, in the eyes of Joe Friday, as a "perp".

Keep in mind anything done to a tree on public right of ways, easements, etc, may be viewed as fair-game by anyone else planning other ways to enhance or decorate the tree. Nothing makes any geocacher more special than anyone else who may wish to come along and nail their "Garage Sale", "Missing Dog" or "Public Rant By Town Lunatic In Civic Plaza - All Invited".

I tend to work with the tree - figure a way to hide or hang that doesn't so much displace a millimeter of bark. Camo wire, fishing line, etc. If it's not working, go find another tree or consider not doing the hide at all.

Edited December 12, 2012 by DragonsWest

December 12, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

December 12, 2012

I think the tree's point of view is missing in this discussion.

Who owns the tree?

Is it a public tree or on private property? If it is on private property and is your own property you may possibly do as you wish, though there have been incidents of endangered trees being purposefully nailed with copper nails by property owners to get rid of them against a prohibition by civil statute protecting it.

If the tree is in a city, state or national park you might wish to get permission, lest find yourself classified, in the eyes of Joe Friday, as a "perp".

Keep in mind anything done to a tree on public right of ways, easements, etc, may be viewed as fair-game by anyone else planning other ways to enhance or decorate the tree. Nothing makes any geocacher more special than anyone else who may wish to come along and nail their "Garage Sale", "Missing Dog" or "Public Rant By Town Lunatic In Civic Plaza - All Invited".

I tend to work with the tree - figure a way to hide or hang that doesn't so much displace a millimeter of bark. Came wire, fishing line, etc. If it's not working, go find another tree or consider not doing the hide at all.

I work under the assumption that the hide has proper permission meaning whoever owns the tree was made fully aware of all aspects of the hide and the long term aspect of cachers going to it. Also personally nearly the only time I report a cache is if it does not have proper permission from the land owner/manger. Most everything else like if its dangerous I post a note or write an email to the co.

3.6k · December 12, 2012

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.

It's still a living thing, and putting a nail into a tree is a form of altering because the tree never had a nail in it before the cache was there. There are alternate ways to put something in a tree that is less invasive to it.

Edited December 12, 2012 by jellis

4.2k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

Good grief. Let's all start a list of specific things that aren't in the guidelines. I'll kick off the list with:

*Do not place your cache container inside the cloaca of a living alligator

2.6k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

Good grief. Let's all start a list of specific things that aren't in the guidelines. I'll kick off the list with:

*Do not place your cache container inside the cloaca of a living alligator

There's no rule about hanging it around a rabid raccoon's neck either. Show me one.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Totem Clan

19k · December 13, 2012

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.

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

Take me up on my challenge. I dare you.

19k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Edited December 13, 2012 by knowschad

19k · December 13, 2012

Likewise, burying a cache will not harm the dirt. That doesn't mean that it is allowed.

3.6k · December 13, 2012

FYI one of the caches I started the thread about got archived and unarchived when the cache was changed to conform with the guidelines. I'll be by there this weekend to see how they changed it.

22k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

Good grief. Let's all start a list of specific things that aren't in the guidelines. I'll kick off the list with:

*Do not place your cache container inside the cloaca of a living alligator

Where does it say that you can't put nails in trees. I certainly have no problem explaining that provided I'm not just passing out generalities.

Not being a reviewer and all.

6.1k · December 13, 2012

I know for a fact that if you put a nail into a telephone pole it won't grow anymore, and the reviewer probably won't publish it either.

22k · December 13, 2012

I know for a fact that if you put a nail into a telephone pole it won't grow anymore, and the reviewer probably won't publish it either.

If you tell them or if they decide?

Honestly I have to go back to the OPs question about if it's against the guidelines. I mean I can have an opinion but what exactly do you want me to tell everyone else.

Edited December 13, 2012 by BlueDeuce

6.1k · December 13, 2012

I found a cache which had been archived for defacement. It was a fake cable tv junction with wires stapled to a defunct telephone pole which had no active wires at all. I thought archival was a bit extreme, but technically it was defacement. Do that to an active pole and the utility workers will cuss you out.

There is a fairly recent thread in which the OP casually mentions putting a screw inside the interior of a hollow tree, and nobody pointed it out. Technically it's against the guidelines, but until someone thinks it poses a problem it will be fine. The guidelines are based on land manager feedback. Nine out of 10 probably won't mind nails, but that 10th one will get 100 caches archived if they discover the process. I personally hid a few caches which used tiny nails for clues, but I eventually voluntarily archived them after I found other examples which were much worse.

22k · December 13, 2012

So it's just a matter of permission. Otherwise it's against guidelines.

2.8k · December 13, 2012

I think just by living we alter the environment........

We're so focused on attacking each others way of playing this game in these forums that we do more (perceived) damage to geocaching than a nail in a tree or stomping through the forest will ever do.

19k · December 13, 2012

I think just by living we alter the environment........

We're so focused on attacking each others way of playing this game in these forums that we do more (perceived) damage to geocaching than a nail in a tree or stomping through the forest will ever do.

Yes, we do alter the environment, just by living. That is not the point.

And nobody that I see here is attacking the way anybody plays the game. Nails in trees are verboten. I happen to disagree, but I can understand the reason for it, and will respect the decision. The damage is in reputation, not trees.

22k · December 13, 2012

I think just by living we alter the environment........

We're so focused on attacking each others way of playing this game in these forums that we do more (perceived) damage to geocaching than a nail in a tree or stomping through the forest will ever do.

No, I think it is a flat out matter of permission. And a cache owner should should be required to respond to gc.com when it comes into question.

Edited December 13, 2012 by BlueDeuce

6.1k · December 13, 2012

Nails are actually the second level of guideline violations. If they had explicit permission in the first place, they would be fine. Level one, permission, is commonly ignored. Level 2, defacement, then comes into play.

If I were a land manager, I would say they were OK. However, many land managers say no. The listing site also says no. At that point the cache owner really has no choice, as the sport is not an underground activity. With all of the "Geocaching in the News" articles, whatever is out there will eventually be discovered by whoever is in charge. If everyone communicated their intentions properly in the first place, there would be no guideline against it.

I'm just wondering why Keystone has not replied yet..

2.8k · December 13, 2012

I think just by living we alter the environment........

We're so focused on attacking each others way of playing this game in these forums that we do more (perceived) damage to geocaching than a nail in a tree or stomping through the forest will ever do.

No, I think it is a flat out matter of permission. And a cache owner should should be required to respond to gc.com when it comes into question.

Take a look at all the anti FTF threads or the anti power trail or how geocaching has gotten worse since the good old days, we are causing more damage to this game here than is caused by people actually placing and/or finding caches.

This forum is like a bunch of cannibals eating up their own.

3.7k · December 13, 2012

This forum is like a bunch of cannibals eating up their own.

I sure hope that's the geo-beer talking. :unsure:

2.8k · December 13, 2012

This forum is like a bunch of cannibals eating up their own.

I sure hope that's the geo-beer talking.

Yah, day off.

14k · December 13, 2012

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.

It doesn't matter how niraD or you interpret the guideline. All that matters is how the reviewers and Groundspeak interpet the guideline and I suspect that in every case putting a nail or screw in a tree to hide a cache is considered a violation of that guideline.

4.2k · December 13, 2012

I'm just wondering why Keystone has not replied yet..

There are any number of reviewers that still read some portion of the forums. I think it's fear of being (mis)quoted seven years from now.

4.2k · December 13, 2012

I think just by living we alter the environment........

We're so focused on attacking each others way of playing this game in these forums that we do more (perceived) damage to geocaching than a nail in a tree or stomping through the forest will ever do.

No, I think it is a flat out matter of permission. And a cache owner should should be required to respond to gc.com when it comes into question.

Take a look at all the anti FTF threads or the anti power trail or how geocaching has gotten worse since the good old days, we are causing more damage to this game here than is caused by people actually placing and/or finding caches.

This forum is like a bunch of cannibals eating up their own.

I think you vastly overestimate this forum's ability to have any affect the activity of geocaching, the players or the decisions of Groundspeak.

3.6k · December 13, 2012

I think just by living we alter the environment........

We're so focused on attacking each others way of playing this game in these forums that we do more (perceived) damage to geocaching than a nail in a tree or stomping through the forest will ever do.

No, I think it is a flat out matter of permission. And a cache owner should should be required to respond to gc.com when it comes into question.

This forum is like a bunch of cannibals eating up their own.

This part I agree with

December 13, 2012

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

This is what I do. I don't post anything about the issue on the cache page. No note, log, DNF, NM, NA, etc. Just an email (with a picture in necessary) to the reviewer.

Depending on the issue, it either gets archived, or a note something to the effect "There may be permission issues...CO please contact me to clarify". Usually it still gets archived, since there was never permission granted.

Noob question: how does one privately contact a reviewer in the manner in which you've described?

22k · December 13, 2012

I think just by living we alter the environment........

We're so focused on attacking each others way of playing this game in these forums that we do more (perceived) damage to geocaching than a nail in a tree or stomping through the forest will ever do.

No, I think it is a flat out matter of permission. And a cache owner should should be required to respond to gc.com when it comes into question.

Take a look at all the anti FTF threads or the anti power trail or how geocaching has gotten worse since the good old days, we are causing more damage to this game here than is caused by people actually placing and/or finding caches.

This forum is like a bunch of cannibals eating up their own.

Been looking at them for years. I think I might have the latest schedule of upcoming postings. I think charity caches was next but I'll check on that.

2.7k · December 13, 2012

Noob question: how does one privately contact a reviewer in the manner in which you've described?

Look at the bottom of a cache listing from your hmoe area. The "Published" log entry (usually just below the FTF, is the review for that area. Click on their username to send them an e-mail through the GC website.

3.4k · December 13, 2012

Noob question: how does one privately contact a reviewer in the manner in which you've described?

Look at the bottom of a cache listing from your hmoe area. The "Published" log entry (usually just below the FTF, is the review for that area. Click on their username to send them an e-mail through the GC website.

Best to give the reviewer the facts, not your opinion, keep it simple, yet complete. They're busy volunteer people and will want to get to the heart of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

9.3k · December 13, 2012

Noob question: how does one privately contact a reviewer in the manner in which you've described?

Generally, such e-mails will come with a link to that Reviewer's geocaching profile. In that profile will be a link to contact them.

December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

3.1k · December 13, 2012

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

No, what you are getting is the word of cachers who have been at this for a while. We've seen the guidelines be interpreted differently over time.

Most of the difference comes from what all of us have mentioned, and that is the perception of land managers toward Geocaching. At one time, we could do pretty much whatever we wanted for hides. Then land owners and managers and law enforcement got interested when things caught their attention as being "bad". Think bombsquads. Damaging park lands. Digging holes in National Parks. Disturbing key plant and animal habitats. Hanging things in trees that don't belong to the geocacher who placed it...

So, Groundspeak heard about it, and Reviewers were notified about changes to guideline interpretation and enforcement.

Each case is different with geocaches, but if you don't have EXPLICIT permission for a hide type and location, you will be in violation of guidelines if you put a nail into a tree to hang some kind of geocache.

Again, please ask your local Reviewer if you think it should be allowed. We all would love to hear the results of that inquiry. We know how our Reviewers would treat the situation, however.

Edited December 13, 2012 by NeverSummer

19k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

The link to the tree thread was only to prove to you that I'm "on your side" in the belief that nails don't damage trees.

There is nothing in writing that specifically states NAILS IN TREES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

For the third time... hide a cache and submit it. Include a note to the reviewer describing that you put a nail into a tree in order to hide your cache. I challenge you to do that and prove us wrong. That is the only way you're going to know for sure, because you refuse to believe anybody who tells you that they have seen caches archived for that reason.

Edited December 13, 2012 by knowschad

15.3k · December 13, 2012

now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache.

How's this?

1. Select an appropriate location and container.

Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your cache will be hidden with landowner or land manager permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching, may view people searching the property as suspicious. Containers that could be perceived as a bomb or another dangerous item should not be placed. To reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as dangerous by non-geocachers, and being permanently archived by Groundspeak, use common sense when selecting hiding places and containers.

But that isn't really the kind of perception that knowschad was referring to. That kind of (land manager) perception isn't in the guidelines. Land manager perception is part of the original rationale for certain guidelines. But it isn't actually written into the guidelines.

But I suppose you knew that.

December 13, 2012

I went on a hike the other day in a national forest along a well marked trail. Guess how the forest service marked the trail. They nailed the trail markers into live trees, and it wasn't just one or two. In fact I would guess most back country trail markers are attached to live tree with a nail.

December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

The link to the tree thread was only to prove to you that I'm "on your side" in the belief that nails don't damage trees.

There is nothing in writing that specifically states NAILS IN TREES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

For the third time... hide a cache and submit it. Include a note to the reviewer describing that you put a nail into a tree in order to hide your cache. I challenge you to do that and prove us wrong. That is the only way you're going to know for sure, because you refuse to believe anybody who tells you that they have seen caches archived for that reason.

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

19k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

The link to the tree thread was only to prove to you that I'm "on your side" in the belief that nails don't damage trees.

There is nothing in writing that specifically states NAILS IN TREES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

For the third time... hide a cache and submit it. Include a note to the reviewer describing that you put a nail into a tree in order to hide your cache. I challenge you to do that and prove us wrong. That is the only way you're going to know for sure, because you refuse to believe anybody who tells you that they have seen caches archived for that reason.

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

3.1k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

The link to the tree thread was only to prove to you that I'm "on your side" in the belief that nails don't damage trees.

There is nothing in writing that specifically states NAILS IN TREES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

For the third time... hide a cache and submit it. Include a note to the reviewer describing that you put a nail into a tree in order to hide your cache. I challenge you to do that and prove us wrong. That is the only way you're going to know for sure, because you refuse to believe anybody who tells you that they have seen caches archived for that reason.

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

Take it from me. I have it on good authority that at least 1 Land Manager has been instructed to not allow geocaching user-installed "attachment devices" such as nails in trees.

As for the above example about trail markers, Land Managers are well within their right to use their own methods to put up markers, etc. What they don't like is someone else putting them up. I can think of at least one NPS National Park where users are SPECIFICALLY asked to not create their own rock cairn "art" along trails, as it has led to other users getting lost and causing a rescue emergency.

2.7k · December 13, 2012

We buy them books, send them to school, and all they want to do is argue with the teachers!

3.6k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

How old are you? You sound childish. We don't need to prove nails are not allowed in trees. As someone mentioned GS isn't going to name every specific object not allowed. Like burying a cache. They aren't going to name every type of sharp pointed object. They aren't going to mention nails, screws, spikes etc. The guidelines are clear enough and if you don't understand them then ask Groundspeak if nails are allowed. I dare YOU!

Edited December 13, 2012 by jellis

December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

The link to the tree thread was only to prove to you that I'm "on your side" in the belief that nails don't damage trees.

There is nothing in writing that specifically states NAILS IN TREES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

For the third time... hide a cache and submit it. Include a note to the reviewer describing that you put a nail into a tree in order to hide your cache. I challenge you to do that and prove us wrong. That is the only way you're going to know for sure, because you refuse to believe anybody who tells you that they have seen caches archived for that reason.

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

All I'm asking for is a link or for you to copy and paste the rule you are referring too.

22k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

The link to the tree thread was only to prove to you that I'm "on your side" in the belief that nails don't damage trees.

There is nothing in writing that specifically states NAILS IN TREES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

For the third time... hide a cache and submit it. Include a note to the reviewer describing that you put a nail into a tree in order to hide your cache. I challenge you to do that and prove us wrong. That is the only way you're going to know for sure, because you refuse to believe anybody who tells you that they have seen caches archived for that reason.

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

Take it from me. I have it on good authority that at least 1 Land Manager has been instructed to not allow geocaching user-installed "attachment devices" such as nails in trees.

As for the above example about trail markers, Land Managers are well within their right to use their own methods to put up markers, etc. What they don't like is someone else putting them up. I can think of at least one NPS National Park where users are SPECIFICALLY asked to not create their own rock cairn "art" along trails, as it has led to other users getting lost and causing a rescue emergency.

I think if you simply have a conversation with the landowner about everything involved in placing a cache, they'll tell you if nailing a nail to a tree, fence, outhouse is allowed or not. Then when you submit your caches you can say you have permission. Of if the reviewer asks specifically about the reports of a nail you can tell them yes the landowner is aware and is okay with it. In fact here's here's how you can contact them yourself.

On the other-hand if you can't say you got permission you might be asked to get it. Eventually the reviewer knows where it is permitted and where it is not.

Crazy idea, I know.

19k · December 13, 2012

Please show me a rule that specifically states no nails in a tree?

No point in arguing this, but you can get creative. Pound a 6" spike into a tree and put a reflector on the head and now it is a fire tack. You don't need to nail stuff to a tree, you can always hang it. I was a little flustered with that "rule" and made a hide in a tree with the hint: "magnetic". It had a metal fire tack and I as able to magnetize the container to the fire tack and so as they are walking around the trees they were looking for something magnetic. Got a couple good laughs.

No I agree its not worth arguing its just a pet peeve of mine, especially on this forum where everyone is an "expert" I can see their point where someone could read into the guidelines and derive a certain conclusion and I can see against it as well, it's a slippery slope that a few have decided to follow in my opinion that will limit their hides and and possibly creativity of others.

I am an "expert". I have seen a number of caches archived because the reviewer learned that trees had nails or screws put in them in order to hang the cache.

One point that you seem to have a very hard time reading, so I will try it again. This is NOT about harming the trees. This is about land manager (park supervisor, what have you) perception, and it exists because there already have been problems caused by that perception. Please see my "Hungry Trees" thread... you and I are on the same page when it comes to the harming of trees. Really. But that is not what this is about.

[Editing to add link to the "Hungry Trees" thread, which seems rather appropriate for a thread called, Does this just eat at you"]

.

Okay I seen your link of trees, now if you would provide me a link to the specific rule about perception in placing a cache. I ask for proof and people fail to come up with any so most people have just left glib remarks.

The link to the tree thread was only to prove to you that I'm "on your side" in the belief that nails don't damage trees.

There is nothing in writing that specifically states NAILS IN TREES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

For the third time... hide a cache and submit it. Include a note to the reviewer describing that you put a nail into a tree in order to hide your cache. I challenge you to do that and prove us wrong. That is the only way you're going to know for sure, because you refuse to believe anybody who tells you that they have seen caches archived for that reason.

Yeah I get that, but where is the written rule about perception of landowners, that you continue to reference yet provide to link or copy and paste. Can you back up what you are saying with proof?

Oh, for cryin' out loud! Take me up on my challenge or stop this futile arguing!

All I'm asking for is a link or for you to copy and paste the rule you are referring too.

Sigh...

Does this just eat at you?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment