Question about fence post caches

[+maurycy]

I just got my cache rejected by reviewer because I have stated in the note to the reviewer that the container is a pill bottle glued to the bottom of a fence post cap. This apparently violates the rules. Is this a recent change? I have found number of caches like that and there is even one hidden in 2012 near the area that I placed my cache. Of course in the case of this cache, the owner did not specified that the cache is glued to the fence cap (someone else's property).

 

Please advise.

 

Thanks.

[+Semper Questio]

I can see where 2 issues come into play.

 

1. Permission to place on private property.

2. Modifying or defacing property to place a cache.

 

Both are covered by the guidelines and, although I agree that, when it comes to fencepost hides like yours, it has not been very stringentley enforced, I can see the validity of the denial.

I have wondered for years about the appropriateness of just those kinds of hides as well as others such as attaching a container to someone's fence along a road.

 

Edit to add...

 

If you have, or can get, permission form the fence owner for this placement and communicate that to the reviewer, that could get you a positive review.

 

Also keep in mind that having any kind of cache hidden in any location in any way does not set a precedent. Any new submission must adhere to any new guidelines or stepped up enforcement of existing ones.

 

It would be my guess that many, if nt most, of the caches you have seen before, like so many questionable caches, were listed without the reviewer actually knowing any particulars about the hide other than the location. If hiders don't tell reviewers specifically what they are doing, the reviewers have no way of knowing what is actually placed "out there".

Edited September 10, 2013 by Semper Questio

[+maurycy]

Thanks for replying. According to the reviewer, my cache violated the #2 rule you have posted.

 

I understand that gluing container to a fence violates rules. I will remove my cache and hide it in a different location.

 

What bothers me is that if you lie or omit valid information from your cache listing, your cache will get published. Now when I wanted to place my first cache, I have realized that a lot of caches do not follow the rules. Like I said before, there is cache less than a mile away placed in 2012 that is the same type as the one I was trying to hide. Well, this cache does violate rules but was published. About a month ago I found a cache that was secured to a branch via plastic zip tie. I guess in a year or so when the tree grows, the zip tie will alter the branch. That should also be disallowed. Still, there are tons of caches like that that gets published. So what's the point of the review process if it doesn't really check the physical location of the cache?

Edited September 10, 2013 by maurycy

[+L0ne.R]

Thanks for replying. According to the reviewer, my cache violated the #2 rule you have posted.

 

I understand that gluing container to a fence violates rules. I will remove my cache and hide it in a different location.

 

What bothers me is that if you lie or omit valid information from your cache listing, your cache will get published. Now when I wanted to place my first cache, I have realized that a lot of caches do not follow the rules. Like I said before, there is cache less than a mile away placed in 2012 that is the same type as the one I was trying to hide. Well, this cache does violate rules but was published. About a month ago I found a cache that was secured to a branch via plastic zip tie. I guess in a year or so when the tree grows, the zip tie will alter the branch. That should also be disallowed. Still, there are tons of caches like that that gets published. So what's the point of the review process if it doesn't really check the physical location of the cache?

 

They rely on the community to post Needs Archive logs when they see a violation that slips past a Reviewer.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I think the biggest issue is... somebody else' fence... and (perhaps, I dunno for sure) that you did not explicitly state that there was permission granted by the owner.

 

Whether or not the other CO got permission is meaningless, as far as you hide is concerned.

 

As SQ said -- a previous hide does not set precedence. Just because it exists, doesn't mean that your similar one will be accepted.

 

All said and done... speak with your reviewer, after all, they pretty much have the final word. The responses that you get in here are only tertiary to that what (s)he says.

[+maurycy]

They rely on the community to post Needs Archive logs when they see a violation that slips past a Reviewer.

 

That's why it is not working. I bet none of the geocachers that log fence post caches know that such placement violates the rules. I did not knew about it until now when I tried to place my first cache. To prove my point, there are 38 logs for the fence post cache near mine and 7 of them this year alone from geocachers that found 1000+ caches. If such veterans do not know the rules or are to lazy to report, the review process is going to fail.

[+Semper Questio]

Thanks for replying. According to the reviewer, my cache violated the #2 rule you have posted.

 

I understand that gluing container to a fence violates rules. I will remove my cache and hide it in a different location.

 

What bothers me is that if you lie or omit valid information from your cache listing, your cache will get published. Now when I wanted to place my first cache, I have realized that a lot of caches do not follow the rules. Like I said before, there is cache less than a mile away placed in 2012 that is the same type as the one I was trying to hide. Well, this cache does violate rules but was published. About a month ago I found a cache that was secured to a branch via plastic zip tie. I guess in a year or so when the tree grows, the zip tie will alter the branch. That should also be disallowed. Still, there are tons of caches like that that gets published. So what's the point of the review process if it doesn't really check the physical location of the cache?

 

I understand your frustration and I largely agree with you. This game exists and thrives largely on the honor system and every time someone uses that to their advantage, accidentally or intentionally, it lessens the game. Unfortunately, a culture of looking the other way has evolved so that if you call anyone on these issues, you run a very good chance of being ostracized in your caching community and, quite probably, drawing a lot of undesireable attention to yourself.

[+u1bd2005]

So what's the point of the review process if it doesn't really check the physical location of the cache?

 

Just with regards to that too, the reviewers are all volunteers of the community, there is no way they could physically check every caches placement before review.

 

By all means if a cache clearly violates terms agreed to when setting one up, contact the CO or post an N/A to try and get it sorted

[+dprovan]

First of all, I'm glad you were clear with your reviewer, and I hope your reaction is, "Whew! Good thing I mentioned it else my cache would have violated guidelines," and not, "Dang, I should have kept my mouth shut." As you have guessed, too many hiders react the second way.

 

I've found several caches hidden like this, so I'm interested in hearing the legal discussion. I wonder if it matters whether you added your own fence cap to a fence that didn't have one or you stole an existing fence cap, modified it, and returned it? And I can imagine places where this would be a bigger deal than others, so I'm curious to find out how hard and fast the rule against it is.

[+TriciaG]

I wonder if it would not be defacing the fence post cap to have it stuck on via magnet instead of glued.

[+Semper Questio]

I wonder if it would not be defacing the fence post cap to have it stuck on via magnet instead of glued.

 

I've thought about this many times since a magnet can scratch a finished surface. The same could be said for adhesive velcro patches for securing caches. And what about LPCs? Lifting the skirt scratches the post, thereby damaging someone else's property.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

It's a slippery slope..............

[+niraD]

I wonder if it would not be defacing the fence post cap to have it stuck on via magnet instead of glued.

Or what about the cache owner attaching the container to a fence post cap of his own, and then placing it where there is a missing fence post cap?

[Keystone]

Hi maurycy, and sorry for the surprise during your cache review. Maybe this will help:

 

If you and I have an honest dialogue where you learn about a guideline issue after being transparent about your cache details, and you cooperate in fixing the issue, I remember that. For a long time. The next time you submit a cache, I will say to myself, "that maurycy is a straight shooter and I can trust what he says." Doubtful cases will be resolved in your favor. Your caches will, on average, be published faster because I don't need to double-check your statements as thoroughly. And, when I find your caches as a player, there will be no unpleasant surprises.

 

Now suppose that BillyBob in the next town over hides the same cache as you, but misleads me about the details. Two weeks later, I get an email from the reviewer in the territory next to mine: "Hey, I found BillyBob's new cache on Saturday. Why are you publishing caches that are [insert guideline violation here]?"

 

BillyBob is now eternally on my "naughty list." He's made me look bad in front of a colleague. In the future, I will ask him lots more questions, and I won't trust the answers. All doubts will be resolved against him. His caches will, on average, be published slower because I need to double-check every statement he makes.

 

I am glad you are maurycy and not BillyBob. Thank you.

[+Ben0w]

Regarding the other fence-post cache: they clicked in that little box which says "cache is placed according to the rules", including having permission. Are you really sure, they have none?

 

The other view: As a cacher I can't check if there actual is permission, I have to believe it. So even long-seasoned cachers logging it doesn't make it legal to place just another one of the same kind.

[+Tassie_Boy]

Ok so what I can gather, the real problem with this topic is the issue of illegal caches getting through the review stage. Would it be of any help to the reviewers if there was a requirement to post a photo of the cache position as a part of the review process? A reviewer cannot physically visit every cache (I think my closest is 2000Km away in sydney) however it would allow them to "sight" the cache position before knocking it back or giving it the go ahead.... What do you think?

[+Ben0w]

Only thing to be sure a cache is placed legally is to document it for the reviewer with a signed contract, notarially certified. Then checking the cache site by at least two randomly assigned reviewers and maybe a supervisor, finally approved by a board of independent senior cachers.

 

Don't think that would be practical and at the moment the system of trust works well. No need to complicate it (how would you ensure the picture is no fake?).

 

I fear the moment some lawyer forces Groundspeak to really control the hide (see above) instead of just relying on the checkbox when sending the cache listing.

 

Unfortunately, a bit of it already is in effect since (I think, from what I read somewhere, maybe it's a local thing here) Lost Place Caches can't be published without written consent of the property owner.