Jump to content

Container/No Container/Log/No Log Ruling


Team Firenze
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

So I am not going to post the specific cache unless requested but I am looking for the opinion of the group on another grey area. (I am sure you can figure it out if you want)

 

(I am not the CO but a friend of the CO)

 

So, we have a nice cache here that is pretty creative and people seem to like it. It is a log with no bark on it with a sharpie attached to so you can sign the log.

 

That cache has been archived since it does not "contain a log".

 

Obviously the argument is that the "log" is the log.

 

I mean yes if you go by the letter of the law this is not allowed.

 

But these being guidelines you would assume there was some room for flexibility.

 

Are we technically searching for a CONTAINER so we can sign PAPER INSIDE that CONTAINER or are we just looking for something to sign (no defacing) at a location found by GPS?

 

Oh and the "LOG" had the bark taken off and was brought to the location by the CO.

Link to comment

I believe the ruling on this a while ago was that a geocache needs to be a container holding a log, not simply a log.

 

If it were just a log, the arguement is that one could sign anything at GZ and call it a find, thus defacing via graffitti an area. "Sneaky" hides like that make it difficult to know that the "log" is the cache, and may encourage the signing of whatever you want, anywhere you want near the coordinates of a geocache and calling it a find.

Link to comment

So I am not going to post the specific cache unless requested but I am looking for the opinion of the group on another grey area. (I am sure you can figure it out if you want)

 

(I am not the CO but a friend of the CO)

 

So, we have a nice cache here that is pretty creative and people seem to like it. It is a log with no bark on it with a sharpie attached to so you can sign the log.

 

That cache has been archived since it does not "contain a log".

 

Obviously the argument is that the "log" is the log.

 

I mean yes if you go by the letter of the law this is not allowed.

 

But these being guidelines you would assume there was some room for flexibility.

 

Are we technically searching for a CONTAINER so we can sign PAPER INSIDE that CONTAINER or are we just looking for something to sign (no defacing) at a location found by GPS?

 

Oh and the "LOG" had the bark taken off and was brought to the location by the CO.

Also, it sounds like the agenda between the lines here is to let the cache exist as a wood log that can be signed. So long as the description doesn't explicitly state which log it is, what it looks like, etc, I don't think you're going to get much wiggle room on the guidelines.

 

If the cache description makes no mention to guide people to the correct "log" in the pile, how would one know what type of "cache" they are looking for? Thus why caches have containers--you know you've found a cache, and not just a random item.

Link to comment

A containerless log does not fit the guidelines. If they had put the log inside of another container, it probably would.

 

Exceptions include:

  • an actual log used by Groundspeak at Geowoodstock
  • Lab caches, again being used by Groundspeak, which consist of code words written on objects at Mega events

 

There was a thread not too long ago about a "cache" which consisted of someone scratching the word "log" on the outside of a crumpled up water bottle and instructing others to scratch their name on the outside. This is similar.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

So I am not going to post the specific cache unless requested but I am looking for the opinion of the group on another grey area. (I am sure you can figure it out if you want)

 

(I am not the CO but a friend of the CO)

 

So, we have a nice cache here that is pretty creative and people seem to like it. It is a log with no bark on it with a sharpie attached to so you can sign the log.

 

That cache has been archived since it does not "contain a log".

 

Obviously the argument is that the "log" is the log.

 

I mean yes if you go by the letter of the law this is not allowed.

 

But these being guidelines you would assume there was some room for flexibility.

 

Are we technically searching for a CONTAINER so we can sign PAPER INSIDE that CONTAINER or are we just looking for something to sign (no defacing) at a location found by GPS?

 

Oh and the "LOG" had the bark taken off and was brought to the location by the CO.

 

Just curious, how did the first cacher who came along know that the log was the cache log? If there was indication of what a person would find at ground zero, then i wouldn't see a problem. But if a person went out, looked around, then had to guess that the log was the cache,, i errr, don't know.

 

I don't believe it would matter anyway as i think the guidelines now require some kind of container. If only the CO would have placed that log into a giant ziplock baggie.

Link to comment

NeverSummer - Yes I have just been told by the reviewer that this is actually a rule and not a guideline. There must be a container and a log.

 

Also, the log was about 1' by 8" with a sharpie attached to it by a wire. There were no other logs around. It was completely obvious.

 

The agenda is not between the lines. As I mentioned I am a friend of the CO and would like to cache to remain.

 

4wheelin - I don't think this is a similar to a piece of trash. The CO took a large piece of wood, took the bark off, hung a wire off of with a sharpie attached to it and the GC number on it and got 37 favorites for his trouble.

 

Mudfrog and Dog - I actually was the first cacher to find it. As I stated before it very obvious with the GC Code, pen and no other logs. Also, after the reviewer clarified the rules my exact response was that I would ask the CO to place the cache in a giant ziploc bag.

Link to comment

My concern would be that placing it in a bag or a bigger container would draw more attention to it and make it much more likely to be muggled.

 

Edit: In the interest of full disclosure, this is not my cache but was on my "to-do" list of ones to find before being archived.

Edited by NukeReactor
Link to comment

I don't think this is a similar to a piece of trash. The CO took a large piece of wood, took the bark off, hung a wire off of with a sharpie attached to it and the GC number on it and got 37 favorites for his trouble.

 

I'm sure it was nicely done. It was similar only in the fact that it did not have a container. However, if they did allow those, I'm sure people would start using garbage. Imagine a trail of water bottles and cans every 530 feet along a highway. Or throwdowns consisting of any object found nearby with the word "log" scratched on it. There is also the graffiti aspect. Log is full, so people start writing on nearby trees, ect.

Link to comment
NeverSummer - Yes I have just been told by the reviewer that this is actually a rule and not a guideline. There must be a container and a log.
Well, you've got a log. All that seems to be missing is the container.

 

So why not add one?

 

I've found any number of caches that were small/micro containers placed inside a hole drilled in a log. Groundspeak even sells one or two ready-to-hide caches like that in their online store. So in addition to stripping the bark and attaching a Sharpie with wire, you could drill a hole and insert a container with a traditional paper log.

 

Those who want to sign the wood log with the Sharpie can enjoy the cache as it was originally conceived. Those who insist on signing the paper log in the container can do so. (You might want to include a pencil or ballpoint pen in that container, so they don't sign it with the Sharpie.) And you've complied with Groundspeak's rules guidelines rules.

Link to comment

So, a cache that is a piece of wood with a marker attached is not allowed, but one where a person brings their own graffiti tool (paint or pens) is acceptable?!?! Why would defacing a public area (regardless if it is a customary thing to do) be acceptable as a geocache? Did the Wisconsin reviewer miss the rule about the need for a container with a log?

Link to comment

So, a cache that is a piece of wood with a marker attached is not allowed, but one where a person brings their own graffiti tool (paint or pens) is acceptable?!?! Why would defacing a public area (regardless if it is a customary thing to do) be acceptable as a geocache? Did the Wisconsin reviewer miss the rule about the need for a container with a log?

 

Yes.

Link to comment

I don't think this is a similar to a piece of trash. The CO took a large piece of wood, took the bark off, hung a wire off of with a sharpie attached to it and the GC number on it and got 37 favorites for his trouble.

 

I'm sure it was nicely done. It was similar only in the fact that it did not have a container. However, if they did allow those, I'm sure people would start using garbage. Imagine a trail of water bottles and cans every 530 feet along a highway. Or throwdowns consisting of any object found nearby with the word "log" scratched on it. There is also the graffiti aspect. Log is full, so people start writing on nearby trees, ect.

 

Someone's already tried this with stakes. He drove a stake into the ground every .1 miles, easy peasy - no need to look for hiding spots. Then he asked people to sign the stake. He also left extra stakes at the start of the power trail so that he wouldn't have to perform any maintenance. The PT got shut down, once he revealed his hiding method in the forums (funny that the finders never reported it).

Link to comment

I've found several dozen or more caches that are against the guidelines. Just because they exist, doesn't mean that similar ones are fine.

 

My point was that many exist, not that they are fine. The cache in question from the OP has something like 37 fav points even though it is against the rules so clearly SOMEONE out there is appreciating all the rule breaking going on. My concern is more along the lines of when is strict accordance to a ruleset more important than the spirit of fun and ingenuity that this recreational hobby was built on? Clearly, some caches that would be considered a gray area or "bending the rules" work for a specific location and the manner in which they are done. People can be jerks, of course, so I do pragmatically understand if things have to be in black and white with no middle ground... it's just a bit less shinier a sport for it.

Edited by NukeReactor
Link to comment
NeverSummer - Yes I have just been told by the reviewer that this is actually a rule and not a guideline. There must be a container and a log.
Well, you've got a log. All that seems to be missing is the container.

 

So why not add one?

 

I've found any number of caches that were small/micro containers placed inside a hole drilled in a log. Groundspeak even sells one or two ready-to-hide caches like that in their online store. So in addition to stripping the bark and attaching a Sharpie with wire, you could drill a hole and insert a container with a traditional paper log.

 

Those who want to sign the wood log with the Sharpie can enjoy the cache as it was originally conceived. Those who insist on signing the paper log in the container can do so. (You might want to include a pencil or ballpoint pen in that container, so they don't sign it with the Sharpie.) And you've complied with Groundspeak's rules guidelines rules.

 

I guess that's a good alternative.

 

The biggest problem here is that the CO in question is very creative and active in the community. Every cache of his/her's that I've found meets the guidelines and it's obvious that he/she went out of the way to make sure that this one fit the guidelines. An event like this is something that can drive a CO away from the game or participate in the proverbial geo-cide.

 

I've seen dozens of caches that where logs on the back of magnets. Are these illegal too?

 

Reading between the lines on this one, I think the issue stemmed from another geocacher that didn't exactly catch on to the joke.

Link to comment
My point was that many exist, not that they are fine. The cache in question from the OP has something like 37 fav points even though it is against the rules so clearly SOMEONE out there is appreciating all the rule breaking going on. My concern is more along the lines of when is strict accordance to a ruleset more important than the spirit of fun and ingenuity that this recreational hobby was built on? Clearly, some caches that would be considered a gray area or "bending the rules" work for a specific location and the manner in which they are done. People can be jerks, of course, so I do pragmatically understand if things have to be in black and white with no middle ground... it's just a bit less shinier a sport for it.

 

The issue with caches that break the guidelines is that they will always seem shinier than all the rest, they are uncommon for a reason. This alone will make it easy for them to rack up the favorite points. I believe that true ingenuity comes from a CO who plays by all the rules and still manages to make cachers stand back in awe.

Link to comment
I've seen dozens of caches that where logs on the back of magnets. Are these illegal too?
Technically, yes. Flat magnet caches where the log is the back surface of the magnet are not allowed by the current interpretation of the guidelines because there is no container. But all it takes to comply with the guidelines is to add a plastic bag to the back of the magnet, and to put the log in the plastic bag instead of gluing the log to the back of the magnet.
Link to comment

Reading between the lines on this one, I think the issue stemmed from another geocacher that didn't exactly catch on to the joke.

 

Yep, you got it. Someone who felt that a cache that is disabled for 1 month and 3 days must be archived. Also where he felt the CO was rude to him.

Link to comment
My point was that many exist, not that they are fine. The cache in question from the OP has something like 37 fav points even though it is against the rules so clearly SOMEONE out there is appreciating all the rule breaking going on. My concern is more along the lines of when is strict accordance to a ruleset more important than the spirit of fun and ingenuity that this recreational hobby was built on? Clearly, some caches that would be considered a gray area or "bending the rules" work for a specific location and the manner in which they are done. People can be jerks, of course, so I do pragmatically understand if things have to be in black and white with no middle ground... it's just a bit less shinier a sport for it.

 

The issue with caches that break the guidelines is that they will always seem shinier than all the rest, they are uncommon for a reason. This alone will make it easy for them to rack up the favorite points. I believe that true ingenuity comes from a CO who plays by all the rules and still manages to make cachers stand back in awe.

I can see why Groundspeak holds this view.

 

I view it slightly differently. Nearly every, if not all guidelines, have the undesirable effect of limiting cacher creativity. Options that have been used to create unique and innovative caches are taken away. The reason is always that other cachers abused the flexibility by creating caches that cause problems of one sort or another.

 

I believe that Groundspeak understands this and that new guidelines are always carefully considered before being implemented. It would be nice to know the reason or rationale for the guidelines, and my main complaint is often that we are left to guess. In this case, I recall seeing some posts from Groundspeak lackeys that the reason for a separate log in addition to the container has to do with maintenance. I personally don't buy that excuse, but as I have my suspicions that other kinds of problems led to this guideline, I accept it.

 

One could, of course, allow exceptions to the guidelines - either by giving reviewers some leeway or through the appeals process. However, I believe that experience has taught that if the excpetions are given out too often they become the rule and that weekens the original intent of the guidelines.

Link to comment

Reading between the lines on this one, I think the issue stemmed from another geocacher that didn't exactly catch on to the joke.

 

Yep, you got it. Someone who felt that a cache that is disabled for 1 month and 3 days must be archived. Also where he felt the CO was rude to him.

 

Yes the 2 NAs and the NM were completely unwarranted. The cache should be archived because the CO was rude and did not fix it within a month? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
I don't think this is a similar to a piece of trash. The CO took a large piece of wood, took the bark off, hung a wire off of with a sharpie attached to it and the GC number on it and got 37 favorites for his trouble.
I'm sure it was nicely done. It was similar only in the fact that it did not have a container. However, if they did allow those, I'm sure people would start using garbage. Imagine a trail of water bottles and cans every 530 feet along a highway. Or throwdowns consisting of any object found nearby with the word "log" scratched on it. There is also the graffiti aspect. Log is full, so people start writing on nearby trees, ect.

 

4wheeler, you seem to be saying two things here. First that it was nicely done, then you compare it to throwdowns and graffiti. As I said before this was neither a throwdown or graffiti.

 

NeverSummer - Yes I have just been told by the reviewer that this is actually a rule and not a guideline. There must be a container and a log.
Well, you've got a log. All that seems to be missing is the container.So why not add one?I've found any number of caches that were small/micro containers placed inside a hole drilled in a log. Groundspeak even sells one or two ready-to-hide caches like that in their online store. So in addition to stripping the bark and attaching a Sharpie with wire, you could drill a hole and insert a container with a traditional paper log.Those who want to sign the wood log with the Sharpie can enjoy the cache as it was originally conceived. Those who insist on signing the paper log in the container can do so. (You might want to include a pencil or ballpoint pen in that container, so they don't sign it with the Sharpie.) And you've complied with Groundspeak's rules guidelines rules.

 

This is honestly the best response I have seen yet. It seems a shame to have to do this just to fit into the rules but I honestly think it works for both sides and suggested it to the CO and reviewer.

 

here is a geocache that has no container or paper log to sign and it has been an active cache since 2011Graffiti me

 

That is an amazing an cool cache. Unfortunately, one person could ruin the game by requesting that it be archived.

 

I've found several dozen or more caches that are against the guidelines. Just because they exist, doesn't mean that similar ones are fine.
My point was that many exist, not that they are fine. The cache in question from the OP has something like 37 fav points even though it is against the rules so clearly SOMEONE out there is appreciating all the rule breaking going on. My concern is more along the lines of when is strict accordance to a ruleset more important than the spirit of fun and ingenuity that this recreational hobby was built on? Clearly, some caches that would be considered a gray area or "bending the rules" work for a specific location and the manner in which they are done. People can be jerks, of course, so I do pragmatically understand if things have to be in black and white with no middle ground... it's just a bit less shinier a sport for it.

 

What this is really a great summation of the overall issue. I have a thought here that I will save for the end of my post that works as the reason for the black/white no bending of the rules mentality.

 

Reading between the lines on this one, I think the issue stemmed from another geocacher that didn't exactly catch on to the joke.
Yep, you got it. Someone who felt that a cache that is disabled for 1 month and 3 days must be archived. Also where he felt the CO was rude to him.

 

There seems to be a lot of disabling/needs maint/archiving going on in our area recently.

 

With all this input I think NR's point is probably the most poignant. The ability of reviewers and Groundspeak to change guidelines into rules is the heart of the problem. Now I understand rules are there for a reason and I am sure they are good reasons. BUT if we were able to slow down and allow indvidual exceptions we could turn this into a better hobby.

 

GS has already said that cache precadence does not matter in regards to other caches being published. So, if we allow a reviewer to say this cache breaks the rules for a good reason so I am going to allow it then we don't have to let the guy who throws 100 stakes in the ground do it as well.

 

Now I can see the argument that will follow my suggestion is that there is no way that reviewers can take the time to work on one offs like this. That is of course another issue in and of itself. I really don't know how our reviewer covers such a wide area. I can imagine he is extremely overtaxed. Maybe if he had some help or maybe even had an assistant SPECIAL reviewer we could make some better caches that are quality, help the game, and not completely break the rules.

Link to comment

here is a geocache that has no container or paper log to sign and it has been an active cache since 2011

 

Graffiti me

 

So, a cache that is a piece of wood with a marker attached is not allowed, but one where a person brings their own graffiti tool (paint or pens) is acceptable?!?! Why would defacing a public area (regardless if it is a customary thing to do) be acceptable as a geocache? Did the Wisconsin reviewer miss the rule about the need for a container with a log?

 

It appears that when the cache was first published, it actually followed the rules. It looks like after it went missing a few times, the CO changed the description and his own requirements for logging a find.

Link to comment

here is a geocache that has no container or paper log to sign and it has been an active cache since 2011

 

Graffiti me

 

So, a cache that is a piece of wood with a marker attached is not allowed, but one where a person brings their own graffiti tool (paint or pens) is acceptable?!?! Why would defacing a public area (regardless if it is a customary thing to do) be acceptable as a geocache? Did the Wisconsin reviewer miss the rule about the need for a container with a log?

 

It appears that when the cache was first published, it actually followed the rules. It looks like after it went missing a few times, the CO changed the description and his own requirements for logging a find.

How long before the NM or NA log from someone who hasn't found the cache yet? :ph34r:

Link to comment

Get a big container and put the log in it. :ph34r:

You are following the rules ... you get to have your joke ... win win.

I found that cache, in Nevada. It was the only "log" for miles around in the desert.

 

As for the cache described in the OP, the early replies got it right. Not much to add from the reviewer's perspective.

Link to comment

NeverSummer - Yes I have just been told by the reviewer that this is actually a rule and not a guideline. There must be a container and a log.

 

Also, the log was about 1' by 8" with a sharpie attached to it by a wire. There were no other logs around. It was completely obvious.

 

The agenda is not between the lines. As I mentioned I am a friend of the CO and would like to cache to remain.

 

4wheelin - I don't think this is a similar to a piece of trash. The CO took a large piece of wood, took the bark off, hung a wire off of with a sharpie attached to it and the GC number on it and got 37 favorites for his trouble.

 

Mudfrog and Dog - I actually was the first cacher to find it. As I stated before it very obvious with the GC Code, pen and no other logs. Also, after the reviewer clarified the rules my exact response was that I would ask the CO to place the cache in a giant ziploc bag.

 

And if I recall correctly it also had a Geocaching sticker clearly identifying it.

 

Kinda funny, I came to the board tonight looking for information about a unique cache I was looking to place. I'm now thinking that it may not be worth my time if the rules are that inflexible or left up to the interpretation of a particular reviewer.

Link to comment

So, the company that does the listings makes a rule that says a Geocache must be a container with a log. What is so limiting about that? Not a building to graffiti, not a piece of wood with a marker attached, not an old compact disc inserted in a crack in the sidewalk, or any of the many other 'novel' ideas for things to be signed. There are so few rules in this game, why do people feel the need to bend or break them?

Link to comment

here is a geocache that has no container or paper log to sign and it has been an active cache since 2011

 

Graffiti me

 

So, a cache that is a piece of wood with a marker attached is not allowed, but one where a person brings their own graffiti tool (paint or pens) is acceptable?!?! Why would defacing a public area (regardless if it is a customary thing to do) be acceptable as a geocache? Did the Wisconsin reviewer miss the rule about the need for a container with a log?

 

It appears that when the cache was first published, it actually followed the rules. It looks like after it went missing a few times, the CO changed the description and his own requirements for logging a find.

 

From the cache logs.....

FTF!!! This cache was published while we were in DC so we did not have supplies to properly sign the wall but did have a Sharpie which we wrote FTF Team Wickerbill 6-12-2011. Thanks for bringing us to this unique location. We will stop back with supplies to properly sign the wall. TFTC

 

It doesn't seem that there ever was a container at the location. MN or NA should have been logged long ago.

Link to comment

NeverSummer - Yes I have just been told by the reviewer that this is actually a rule and not a guideline. There must be a container and a log.

 

Also, the log was about 1' by 8" with a sharpie attached to it by a wire. There were no other logs around. It was completely obvious.

 

The agenda is not between the lines. As I mentioned I am a friend of the CO and would like to cache to remain.

 

4wheelin - I don't think this is a similar to a piece of trash. The CO took a large piece of wood, took the bark off, hung a wire off of with a sharpie attached to it and the GC number on it and got 37 favorites for his trouble.

 

Mudfrog and Dog - I actually was the first cacher to find it. As I stated before it very obvious with the GC Code, pen and no other logs. Also, after the reviewer clarified the rules my exact response was that I would ask the CO to place the cache in a giant ziploc bag.

 

I wasn't actually being serious as i think it changes the hide too much. Unfortunately, the cache just wouldn't be the same.

 

I realize we need guidelines, and even rules, but they sometimes extend too far in my opinion. A few of them can sure suck the fun out of our hobby at times.

Link to comment

Reading between the lines on this one, I think the issue stemmed from another geocacher that didn't exactly catch on to the joke.

 

Yep, you got it. Someone who felt that a cache that is disabled for 1 month and 3 days must be archived. Also where he felt the CO was rude to him.

 

Yes the 2 NAs and the NM were completely unwarranted. The cache should be archived because the CO was rude and did not fix it within a month? :rolleyes:

 

Not sure if that is sarcasm, but the NM I posted, tongue-in-cheek. The NA logs were posted by the same cacher, 1 day apart, when the CO did re-enabled the cache after the first NA log. I then posted the NM log just to give him a hard time but obviously is not to be taken seriously. I guess the first cacher felt we were making fun of him (and to be fair, we were. Or at least I was) so he posted another NA log for the CO being rude.

 

If rudeness qualifies for NA, I have a few NAs I should go report... ;)

Link to comment

Reading between the lines on this one, I think the issue stemmed from another geocacher that didn't exactly catch on to the joke.

 

Yep, you got it. Someone who felt that a cache that is disabled for 1 month and 3 days must be archived. Also where he felt the CO was rude to him.

 

Yes the 2 NAs and the NM were completely unwarranted. The cache should be archived because the CO was rude and did not fix it within a month? :rolleyes:

 

Not sure if that is sarcasm, but the NM I posted, tongue-in-cheek. The NA logs were posted by the same cacher, 1 day apart, when the CO did re-enabled the cache after the first NA log. I then posted the NM log just to give him a hard time but obviously is not to be taken seriously. I guess the first cacher felt we were making fun of him (and to be fair, we were. Or at least I was) so he posted another NA log for the CO being rude.

 

If rudeness qualifies for NA, I have a few NAs I should go report... ;)

Ok, just the 2 NAs were unwarranted. I read it too quickly. Disabled for 4 weeks, it deserves a note asking if it will be ready soon, not a NA, or a second one because it was reenabled without any work done to it, or for rudeness.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I don't think this is a similar to a piece of trash. The CO took a large piece of wood, took the bark off, hung a wire off of with a sharpie attached to it and the GC number on it and got 37 favorites for his trouble.

 

I'm sure it was nicely done. It was similar only in the fact that it did not have a container. However, if they did allow those, I'm sure people would start using garbage. Imagine a trail of water bottles and cans every 530 feet along a highway. Or throwdowns consisting of any object found nearby with the word "log" scratched on it. There is also the graffiti aspect. Log is full, so people start writing on nearby trees, ect.

This is such a big problem now - when a paper log is full everyone else is signing everything and anything in sight... Yeah, right.

Link to comment
I don't think this is a similar to a piece of trash. The CO took a large piece of wood, took the bark off, hung a wire off of with a sharpie attached to it and the GC number on it and got 37 favorites for his trouble.

I'm sure it was nicely done. It was similar only in the fact that it did not have a container. However, if they did allow those, I'm sure people would start using garbage. Imagine a trail of water bottles and cans every 530 feet along a highway. Or throwdowns consisting of any object found nearby with the word "log" scratched on it. There is also the graffiti aspect. Log is full, so people start writing on nearby trees, ect.

 

4wheeler, you seem to be saying two things here. First that it was nicely done, then you compare it to throwdowns and graffiti. As I said before this was neither a throwdown or graffiti.

 

Try reading it again.

 

I'm sure it was nicely done.

 

It was similar only in the fact that it did not have a container.

 

However, if they did allow those, I'm sure people would start using garbage. Imagine a trail of water bottles and cans every 530 feet along a highway. Or throwdowns consisting of any object found nearby with the word "log" scratched on it. There is also the graffiti aspect. Log is full, so people start writing on nearby trees, ect.

 

Ironically the cache was placed in an area where the previous hide had used graffiti. Listed as a traditional, it was actually a multi. Stage 1 was an antique cement train octagon. The hotel moved it from the backyard to the center of the parking lot where someone sat collecting parking fees. Just behind him was coordinates and "geocaching" written on the wall in sharpie. People were still finding the final by reading logs saying it had been moved.

 

This cache: "I am an island" is a rock. Listed as a puzzle, it sits at the posted coordinates with names scrawled on it. Ten people marked it as a favorite probably because it is unusual. Somehow it slipped through the cracks, or perhaps they were more lenient in 2008. I don't find anything creative about a rock with the page instructing people to write on it. If rocks, sticks, and posts became caches by writing on them, then the next step would to be writing on just about anything. A discarded water heater in the woods, a burned out car frame. Just write geocache on it and have everyone "tag" it. Someone leaves a lock n lock under a bridge that floats away? Just sign the bridge abutment. Film can in a covered bridge goes MIA? Get that pocket knife out. Yes that has already happened. A cacher carved their name in a covered bridge and posted it in their log, along with a picture.

 

I'm certain that this particular hide was done nicely, but face it, if more cropped up it the hide style would get rather boring and the next step would be to use other objects.

Link to comment

I have found a number of flat magnetic caches - where the log is fixed to the magnet (without a bag). Including several new ones.

 

If it wasn't for reading this forum I would not have known they are not allowed. I don't see anything in the listing guidelines which is explicit that the log needs to be separate from the container.

 

I see:

 

Geocache Contents

Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook.

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

Traditional Caches

A traditional cache consists of at least a container and logbook and is located at the posted coordinates.

 

If I don't read these forums, and I've found lots of "flat caches", and I read the guidelines, there is nothing which jumps out at me that says they are not allowed. They have a logbook, it is just attached to the physical cache. It comes down to interpretation of the word "container".

 

Other grey area caches are those where the logbook is a book (only), in a library. Is the cover of the book the "container"? I've also seen it argued that the library building itself is the container, but the hider did not place the library there.

 

I understand (from this forum) that the interpretation is that the log needs to be separate and inside something. But I don't think the guidelines make that explicitly clear. So I am not surprised that they continue to be hidden.

Link to comment

So, the company that does the listings makes a rule that says a Geocache must be a container with a log. What is so limiting about that? Not a building to graffiti, not a piece of wood with a marker attached, not an old compact disc inserted in a crack in the sidewalk, or any of the many other 'novel' ideas for things to be signed. There are so few rules in this game, why do people feel the need to bend or break them?

 

Let's be honest here, just because there are rules does not mean that they are always enforced or followed. Just like 4wheeler you would like to turn this into us asking to open up the flood gates. That is not the case. We aren't asking to allow every single type of cache that doesn't have a container. Again like 4wheeler you attempt to make the link from this cache to trash. That isn't right or fair.

 

There are actually quiet a few rules to the game in my opinion (ask any new cacher). But of course they aren't rules they are guidelines. And, they are only enforced when a volunteer reviewer feels like it.

Link to comment

 

I wasn't actually being serious as i think it changes the hide too much. Unfortunately, the cache just wouldn't be the same.

 

I realize we need guidelines, and even rules, but they sometimes extend too far in my opinion. A few of them can sure suck the fun out of our hobby at times.

 

I understand and I seriously doubt the CO would do this but the point is that this is what we would have to do to keep a fun cache alive.

Link to comment
I don't think this is a similar to a piece of trash. The CO took a large piece of wood, took the bark off, hung a wire off of with a sharpie attached to it and the GC number on it and got 37 favorites for his trouble.

I'm sure it was nicely done. It was similar only in the fact that it did not have a container. However, if they did allow those, I'm sure people would start using garbage. Imagine a trail of water bottles and cans every 530 feet along a highway. Or throwdowns consisting of any object found nearby with the word "log" scratched on it. There is also the graffiti aspect. Log is full, so people start writing on nearby trees, ect.

 

4wheeler, you seem to be saying two things here. First that it was nicely done, then you compare it to throwdowns and graffiti. As I said before this was neither a throwdown or graffiti.

 

Try reading it again.

 

I'm sure it was nicely done.

 

It was similar only in the fact that it did not have a container.

 

However, if they did allow those, I'm sure people would start using garbage. Imagine a trail of water bottles and cans every 530 feet along a highway. Or throwdowns consisting of any object found nearby with the word "log" scratched on it. There is also the graffiti aspect. Log is full, so people start writing on nearby trees, ect.

 

Ironically the cache was placed in an area where the previous hide had used graffiti. Listed as a traditional, it was actually a multi. Stage 1 was an antique cement train octagon. The hotel moved it from the backyard to the center of the parking lot where someone sat collecting parking fees. Just behind him was coordinates and "geocaching" written on the wall in sharpie. People were still finding the final by reading logs saying it had been moved.

 

This cache: "I am an island" is a rock. Listed as a puzzle, it sits at the posted coordinates with names scrawled on it. Ten people marked it as a favorite probably because it is unusual. Somehow it slipped through the cracks, or perhaps they were more lenient in 2008. I don't find anything creative about a rock with the page instructing people to write on it. If rocks, sticks, and posts became caches by writing on them, then the next step would to be writing on just about anything. A discarded water heater in the woods, a burned out car frame. Just write geocache on it and have everyone "tag" it. Someone leaves a lock n lock under a bridge that floats away? Just sign the bridge abutment. Film can in a covered bridge goes MIA? Get that pocket knife out. Yes that has already happened. A cacher carved their name in a covered bridge and posted it in their log, along with a picture.

 

I'm certain that this particular hide was done nicely, but face it, if more cropped up it the hide style would get rather boring and the next step would be to use other objects.

 

The point I was trying to make is that you are passively not literally comparing this to trash and you continue to do so. This cache has nothing at all to do with Graffiti.

 

This cache has nothing to do with the previous cache.

 

Allowing this cache or any one off cache does not have to open the gate at the asylum.

 

The point I am personally trying to make is that we help the game evolve by slowing down the review process and taking individual caches at their surface value. Along with that I feel like the reviewers are overworked. What I am seeing is a whole of knee jerk reactions from reviewers and I am guessing that is because they are just inundated with cache review.

 

The game is great, we love it and are passionate about it. That doesn't mean it is perfect or we will continue to stick with it no matter what.

Link to comment

This is such a big problem now - when a paper log is full everyone else is signing everything and anything in sight... Yeah, right.

Who said it was a big problem now?

 

Well you mention it again and give examples in your response to my thread. If is not a big problem or in reality doesn't happen very often at all then why bring it up?

Link to comment

I'm certain that this particular hide was done nicely, but face it, if more cropped up it the hide style would get rather boring and the next step would be to use other objects.

 

Absolutely.

 

The first couple of graffiti caches would be cool. After that it'll get copy-catted to ad nauseum. Lamp post caches, button nanos, magnet sheets, sprinkler heads were exciting and creative when they first appeared on the seen. After finding a handful it gets boring, often irritating and sometimes damaging. Graffiti caches will attract even more idle penny-pinching COs or the fly-by-nighters. If the location is cool enough to warrant bringing people to, like the graffiti house, do a few minutes of work and look for a spot on the house or near the house to hide at least a water tight coghlan's $1 matchstick container. And come back to this cool location once or twice a year and replace the log. It's a cool location you should be happy to return and enjoy the visit. It seems that some people say it's about "creativity" when what they really mean is 'I don't want to maintain a logbook or container'.

Link to comment

I'm certain that this particular hide was done nicely, but face it, if more cropped up it the hide style would get rather boring and the next step would be to use other objects.

 

Absolutely.

 

The first couple of graffiti caches would be cool. After that it'll get copy-catted to ad nauseum. Lamp post caches, button nanos, magnet sheets, sprinkler heads were exciting and creative when they first appeared on the seen. After finding a handful it gets boring, often irritating and sometimes damaging. Graffiti caches will attract even more idle penny-pinching COs or the fly-by-nighters. If the location is cool enough to warrant bringing people to, like the graffiti house, do a few minutes of work and look for a spot on the house or near the house to hide at least a water tight coghlan's $1 matchstick container. And come back to this cool location once or twice a year and replace the log. It's a cool location you should be happy to return and enjoy the visit. It seems that some people say it's about "creativity" when what they really mean is 'I don't want to maintain a logbook or container'.

 

Since you read the whole thread you already know that this is exactly what I was asking for. Please abolish the entire "must have a container" rule.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...