Jump to content

possible container idea


sasqwatches
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

please offer feedback on a container idea I have been pondering for a while (since our first library hide) which was recently sparked from another forum thread

This would be another library hide. The container would be a book but it would have 40 or so blank pages for log book use but the book would also have a hollowed out section for swag and trackables. Would this meet the guidelines for a container?

Link to comment

Would this meet the guidelines for a container?

Interesting idea. Obviously, there is a container involved. But the log is not in said container. Unless you interpret container to include the book itself? Personally, I would love such a hide. I'd like to here a Reviewer's take on this, as well as the varied opinions of cachers.

Link to comment

please offer feedback on a container idea I have been pondering for a while (since our first library hide) which was recently sparked from another forum thread

This would be another library hide. The container would be a book but it would have 40 or so blank pages for log book use but the book would also have a hollowed out section for swag and trackables. Would this meet the guidelines for a container?

 

We have 1 exactly like that in my area. However, it is a fairly old cache and I am not sure it would be approved under the current guidelines. Your best bet is to send an email to your area reviewer and get their take on your idea.

Link to comment

please offer feedback on a container idea I have been pondering for a while (since our first library hide) which was recently sparked from another forum thread

This would be another library hide. The container would be a book but it would have 40 or so blank pages for log book use but the book would also have a hollowed out section for swag and trackables. Would this meet the guidelines for a container?

 

I don't see why not. This would be good for one of those Little Free Library locations. We have a lot of caches at those locations around here. I've seen one with a spiral notebook as a log inside the box. I've seen lots (a series by a local cacher) that have the old-school check out cards stuck to the underside of the roof of the box. I've seen a couple with magnetic key hides on the underside. The hollowed-out book would work just fine...except for the possibility of it getting taken by an unsuspecting muggle.

 

If you're talking about an actual library...as long as you have all the proper permissions it seems workable.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

Would this meet the guidelines for a container?

Interesting idea. Obviously, there is a container involved. But the log is not in said container. Unless you interpret container to include the book itself? Personally, I would love such a hide. I'd like to here a Reviewer's take on this, as well as the varied opinions of cachers.

 

Like stated in my first post we do have a library hide in a pretty historic local library already it is a hollowed out book with a separate log notepad inside the hollow section And I did have the reviewer help my through the hide process ((it was our first hide) we are bored with all the lame caches in our area we have vowed never to hide a lamo-cache)

Link to comment

I don't see anything wrong with this. The cache "consists of at least a container and logbook." When someone finds the cache it will be obvious that they have the correct book because it is hollowed out to form the container. It is certainly more imaginative than the typical LPC micro and the log is certainly easier to sign. Who cares if the "logbook" is physically attached to or part of the container or not?

 

If Groundspeak is worried about possible damage or defacing of books, then by the same token they certainly should not allow caches that are fake bolts, electrical plates, number plates, etc., because this encourages attempted disassembly and resulting destruction of actual facilities and could be dangerous to cachers.

Link to comment

Would this meet the guidelines for a container?

Interesting idea. Obviously, there is a container involved. But the log is not in said container. Unless you interpret container to include the book itself? Personally, I would love such a hide. I'd like to here a Reviewer's take on this, as well as the varied opinions of cachers.

 

+1.....sounds great. We've found several " library " hides but I don't recall any having swag.

Link to comment

If your reviewer says no to the original idea, would it not be possible to build the container around the actual book?

 

Using the spine as one side of the container, the front and back covers as the lid and base of the container, and then using some clear plastic around the remaining 3 sides of the container to maintain the look of the book and allow the pages of the book to remain inside to be signed, as the book would be the full container, the log sheets (aka pages) would already be inside.

 

Then you could continue to hollow out an area of the pages for swag/tb's etc...

Link to comment
If your reviewer says no to the original idea, would it not be possible to build the container around the actual book?
My thought (assuming your reviewer says no to the original idea) would be to put an additional log sheet inside the container part of the book. People can sign the front pages of the book, or the log sheet inside the container part of the book. But the container requirement is met.
Link to comment

Maybe I'm getting old, but I remember lots of books that included 'sleeves', that is a box with one open edge that the book slid into. Just find or make one of those... slide the book into that box and that should do it.

Anyone see anything that says the box has to close on all sides? It would still be easy to make a closeable side as well I think.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

You know- I've never seen in the guidelines that the logbook must be in the container... You could always just say that there is room for trackables, and the finder can sign where ever there is a blank page. Or maybe even one of those old school sign out cards that go in the back of the book. You know where whoever checks out the book puts their name and has the return date as well.

Edited by T.D.M.22
Link to comment

You know- I've neve seen in the guidelines that the logbook must be in the container... You could always just say that there is room for trackables, and the finder an sign whereever there is a blank page. Or maybe even one of those old school sign out cards that go in the back of the book. You know where whoever checks out the book puts their name and has the return date as well.

 

I believe I mentioned that above... ;)

 

example: http://coord.info/GLAK2WJ6

Link to comment

This reviewer would probably publish this, but this reviewer's opinion means nothing. The only reviewer's opinion that counts is that of the person who will be reviewing your cache. You are best off running this by him or her.

 

I had planned on contacting my local reviewer I wanted ask in here for 2 reasons to get seasoned pros (or anyones) opinion since we are still somewhat new(less than a year at it) but getting better at Geocaching and 2 get the idea out there for all to see or use as they see fit geo friends who care are geo friends who share

Link to comment

Would this meet the guidelines for a container?

Interesting idea. Obviously, there is a container involved. But the log is not in said container. Unless you interpret container to include the book itself? Personally, I would love such a hide. I'd like to here a Reviewer's take on this, as well as the varied opinions of cachers.

 

It's amazing how often many guidelines questions boil down to semantics. One could reasonably argue that the book is the container, and the book contains blank pages (to use a a log) and empty space for swag items. I suppose a reviewer might have a different interpretation but this comes across to me as a container that not only would meet most peoples definition of a container but is well within the spirit of "the cache must consist of at least a container and a logbook" guideline. Sometimes it seems that some of the "is this okay" ideas are more about seeing how far someone can push the guidelines to prove a point rather trying to come up with an interesting cache. This especially seems to be the case when it comes the "no buried caches" guideline.

 

Bottom line. Ask your reviewer. If they reject the idea, take it to appeals@Groundspeak.com

 

 

Link to comment

In this case I would believe the book is the container? Log is inside of the books cover. I wouldn't even question it at all and just list it to be published. I can't see any reviewer saying a log book that will be dry and in this kind of situation isn't allowed. The only reason I could see them questioning it is if you are questioning it.

Link to comment

There is one in Moncton, New Brunswick that has earned 21 favourites. The coords take you to the library entrance and the title of the cache brings you to the geocaching (or perhaps map books) section in the non-fiction area of the shelves. The book that matches the call number (which is the name of the cache) is the log book. No room for swag. The CO got permission from the library staff to place the hide. It has been there for over seven years.

Link to comment
There is one in Moncton, New Brunswick that has earned 21 favourites. The coords take you to the library entrance and the title of the cache brings you to the geocaching (or perhaps map books) section in the non-fiction area of the shelves. The book that matches the call number (which is the name of the cache) is the log book. No room for swag. The CO got permission from the library staff to place the hide. It has been there for over seven years.
I don't doubt it. But that cache is considered grandfathered. The current interpretation of the guidelines requires that the cache hunt involve finding something using accurate GPS coordinates at some point in the hunt. For library caches, using the coordinates of the parking lot or the library entrance isn't good enough, and new caches like this one won't be listed.
Link to comment

please offer feedback on a container idea I have been pondering for a while (since our first library hide) which was recently sparked from another forum thread

This would be another library hide. The container would be a book but it would have 40 or so blank pages for log book use but the book would also have a hollowed out section for swag and trackables. Would this meet the guidelines for a container?

I love the idea hope its approved :D

Link to comment
I don't doubt it. But that cache is considered grandfathered. The current interpretation of the guidelines requires that the cache hunt involve finding something using accurate GPS coordinates at some point in the hunt. For library caches, using the coordinates of the parking lot or the library entrance isn't good enough, and new caches like this one won't be listed.

 

Suppose one wasy around this would be to make it a puzzle cache or something, use co-ords for something such as a sign post or lampost etc... outside but near to the library. Then use clues based on that to give the finder the details of where in the library the book is hidden.

 

E.g. The coding system my local library uses is a 3 digit number followed by a 3 digit extension (e.g. 796.334) which is stickered onto the spine of each book, Im sure a lot of librarys use similar indexing systems that you could try and link a puzzle cache too.

 

But I don't think a reviewer would be so cruel to pull you up on using coords for the door to the library etc... So I don't think you woul need to worry about that.

Link to comment
But I don't think a reviewer would be so cruel to pull you up on using coords for the door to the library etc... So I don't think you woul need to worry about that.
There's nothing cruel about it. They're just doing their job by enforcing the current interpretation of the guideline that states, "GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and seeking caches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions."
Link to comment
But I don't think a reviewer would be so cruel to pull you up on using coords for the door to the library etc... So I don't think you woul need to worry about that.
There's nothing cruel about it. They're just doing their job by enforcing the current interpretation of the guideline that states, "GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and seeking caches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions."

Couldn't you just post the coordinates of the actual book?

Just sneak up on the roof and grab them. :ph34r:

Link to comment
I don't doubt it. But that cache is considered grandfathered. The current interpretation of the guidelines requires that the cache hunt involve finding something using accurate GPS coordinates at some point in the hunt. For library caches, using the coordinates of the parking lot or the library entrance isn't good enough, and new caches like this one won't be listed.

 

Suppose one wasy around this would be to make it a puzzle cache or something, use co-ords for something such as a sign post or lampost etc... outside but near to the library. Then use clues based on that to give the finder the details of where in the library the book is hidden.

 

E.g. The coding system my local library uses is a 3 digit number followed by a 3 digit extension (e.g. 796.334) which is stickered onto the spine of each book, Im sure a lot of librarys use similar indexing systems that you could try and link a puzzle cache too.

But I don't think a reviewer would be so cruel to pull you up on using coords for the door to the library etc... So I don't think you woul need to worry about that.

 

You describe almost exactly a cache in my area: http://coord.info/GCD362

Link to comment
I don't doubt it. But that cache is considered grandfathered. The current interpretation of the guidelines requires that the cache hunt involve finding something using accurate GPS coordinates at some point in the hunt. For library caches, using the coordinates of the parking lot or the library entrance isn't good enough, and new caches like this one won't be listed.

 

Suppose one wasy around this would be to make it a puzzle cache or something, use co-ords for something such as a sign post or lampost etc... outside but near to the library. Then use clues based on that to give the finder the details of where in the library the book is hidden.

 

E.g. The coding system my local library uses is a 3 digit number followed by a 3 digit extension (e.g. 796.334) which is stickered onto the spine of each book, Im sure a lot of librarys use similar indexing systems that you could try and link a puzzle cache too.

 

But I don't think a reviewer would be so cruel to pull you up on using coords for the door to the library etc... So I don't think you woul need to worry about that.

My local reviewer had me do our first library cache as a multi a physical cache outside the library with a hint on how to find the book inside.( we did not use the dewey it is randomly placed)

Link to comment
But I don't think a reviewer would be so cruel to pull you up on using coords for the door to the library etc... So I don't think you woul need to worry about that.
There's nothing cruel about it. They're just doing their job by enforcing the current interpretation of the guideline that states, "GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and seeking caches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions."
Couldn't you just post the coordinates of the actual book?

Just sneak up on the roof and grab them. :ph34r:

Well, I would think so. I've found a number of caches where there was no GPS reception at the cache location. There are a number of ways to get accurate coordinates using a GPS receiver, even when there is no GPS reception at the cache location. (And there are ways to identify GZ using a GPS receiver, even when there is no GPS reception at the cache location)

 

But IIRC, there was a thread recently about a library cache that someone tried to list as a traditional, with accurate coordinates for where the container was hidden indoors, inside the library. I don't remember how that one was eventually resolved, but the reviewer initially denied the listing.

Link to comment

Not all reviewers are created equal either. I have come across caches in one area clearly circumventing some guidelines that get shot down in other areas. Probably because some reviewers have different interpretations of the term "guideline".

 

I ran into an issue with a cache placement that I had attached to a post which I had placed. Reviewers issues:

 

"Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

 

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed."

 

I argued that the post could have already been there and I cited a couple Geocaches that belonged to and were an integral part of a cacher voted/selected as Geocacher of the month by Groundspeak that were placed in the same manner and after he discussed with reviewer peers he agreed publish if I placed a disclaimer of how and the manner in which my cache was secured.

 

I then proceeded to ask said Geocacher of the month how he dealt with this and a particular "commercial" issue concerning one his caches and this was his reply (and a rather good one I must admit):

 

"The walk with the reviewer is a fine one. I have found it is much better to keep the cache page and description as basic as possible until it is published and then make any necessary changes after publication."

 

Great advice and works like a charm.

 

That being said; the "guidelines" are exactly that. Guidelines. Not embraced law. When this thing first started there were basic geocaches and it evolved into virtuals, webcams, nanos, etc. (hmmmmm where is that "Nano" choice on the cache placement form?) It is a constantly evolving sport limited only by cachers imaginations as far as construction, design, camouflage, etc. If there is not some room for latitude then geocaching like anything else will become stagnant and boring.

 

I'll close with this particular cache as an example:

 

http://coord.info/GC3NE22

 

 

RLTW!!!!

Edited by RangerDoc
Link to comment

In this case I would believe the book is the container? Log is inside of the books cover. I wouldn't even question it at all and just list it to be published. I can't see any reviewer saying a log book that will be dry and in this kind of situation isn't allowed. The only reason I could see them questioning it is if you are questioning it.

In other words, don't ask so many questions. :D

 

But seriously, you've gotten great feedback here, & it sounds like you should go forward with the idea.

Link to comment

 

"The walk with the reviewer is a fine one. I have found it is much better to keep the cache page and description as basic as possible until it is published and then make any necessary changes after publication."

 

Trust is a big part of the review process. This is a great way to ensure that you don't have much from your reviewer.

Link to comment

I once created a puzzle cache that required the solver to go to the local law library and look up a particular case (whose citation was hidden in the puzzle). Neither the librarian nor the reviewer had to know about it, and in fact the information could be gleaned from online sources, although not very easily at first, but with free sources now, it was solvable without the book.

 

I recently found a hollowed out book cache, but it wasn't in a library. The CO has a nicely crafted little cabinet in her front yard, similar in appearance to a large birdhouse, with two shelves full of books. There's one shelf for kids and one for adults. It's a free book swap/lending library. Anyone in the public can come and borrow a book from there. One book, the geocache book, kept getting stolen, so the owner redesigned it to be glued or nailed to the bottom shelf with a boring title (but named in a way geocachers would spot it) and several other books piled on top. After that only geocachers accessed it. I thought that was a great way to implement the idea.

Link to comment

I recently found a hollowed out book cache, but it wasn't in a library. The CO has a nicely crafted little cabinet in her front yard, similar in appearance to a large birdhouse, with two shelves full of books. There's one shelf for kids and one for adults. It's a free book swap/lending library. Anyone in the public can come and borrow a book from there. One book, the geocache book, kept getting stolen, so the owner redesigned it to be glued or nailed to the bottom shelf with a boring title (but named in a way geocachers would spot it) and several other books piled on top. After that only geocachers accessed it. I thought that was a great way to implement the idea.

 

A local CO has put out a whole series of "Bibliophile" caches using the Little Free Libraries. The cool thing she does is use those old-school checkout cards you would see on the inside cover of the books as the log sheet...so she'll tape the card pocket to the underside of the "roof" inside the LFL and slip the card in and cachers just sign the card. Example: http://coord.info/GLAK2WJ6

Link to comment

I personally would not publish the cache as described in the original post. The container and the logbook/logsheet should be separate. The thought behind this is that you should be able to change out the logbook/logsheet when it is full, without having to swap out a totally new container as well (since the container and logbook/logsheet are one and the same in the example).

Edited by Cascade Reviewer
Link to comment

Cascade Reviewer I understand your interpretation (opinion if you will) but please cite where it says in the guidelines where it is required for the container and logbook must be separate entities.

The guidelines aren't going to spell out everything in extreme detail, they would be a mile long. There has to be a point where people use common sense. How can something be a container and a logbook/logsheet at the same time? You have a container. You open it. You take the logbook/logsheet out of it and sign it. You put the logbook/logsheet back in the container. You shut it.

Link to comment

If someone was to run that concept the OP has past me, I'd advice that what is being described is simply a container, no Log book.

 

A container and log book are 2 separate items, the container at minimum "Holds" the log book/sheet, but does not form part of the log book/sheet. Because to replace the log book, would require the container replacing, when the log book is full. That is not 2 separate entities

 

The OP has given a pretty good description. It's a container because there's stuff inside

 

That is correct, it is a container

 

it. It also is a logbook because you can write in it

 

That is incorrect, as when full the the "Whole" container has to be replaced, and not just the log book

 

. If the logbook gets full, they can staple in more pages or maybe just replace the whole container/logbook.

 

Which would happen with a separate log book. The book has been hollowed out, so there is room for a "independent" log book, without using the pages of the hollowed out book as the log book,which means a full log book could be replaced, without replacing the container. Stapling in more and more pages, would just make the book stick out more and more. And whilst the stapled pages, would be a independent log book, the container would still have to be used as the log book first.

 

Deceangi UK Reviewer

Link to comment

I can't find it at the moment, but I recall another reviewer commenting on another "does the log need to be inside and separate from a container" thread that he/she has treated a "book which is the logbook" inside a library as an exception.

 

So it will depend on your reviewer. (Though the reviewer votes on this thread so far are against it).

 

Or you can go with a container which looks like a book on the shelf and put a log inside that; then there is no debate.

Link to comment

Cascade Reviewer I understand your interpretation (opinion if you will) but please cite where it says in the guidelines where it is required for the container and logbook must be separate entities.

The guidelines aren't going to spell out everything in extreme detail, they would be a mile long. There has to be a point where people use common sense. How can something be a container and a logbook/logsheet at the same time? You have a container. You open it. You take the logbook/logsheet out of it and sign it. You put the logbook/logsheet back in the container. You shut it.

 

There are an abundance of caches that are just that, a container and a log book heres one there are others as well they were talked about in a previous thread.

Link to comment

Yes, there are many caches out there which do not have a separate container. Logbook (only) in a library; flat magnet where the log is the back of the magnet, etc.

 

That doesn't mean they meet the guidelines (or any one reviewer's interpretation of them).

 

Many reasons, but mainly:

 

1. The age of the caches. Guidelines (as well as further guidance to reviewers) changes over time.

 

2. The reviewer may not be aware of the container. And as the guidelines are not very explicit about this (and not everyone studies each word in detail anyway) I suspect most of the owners of such caches are also not aware their cache may not follow the guidelines. Someone could easily hide a container just like your idea tomorrow, and unless they described the container in detail it most likely would be published.

 

3. Different Reviewers can have different interpretations.

 

4. Reviewers are human and they could miss something even if the container (or lack of it) is clearly described.

Link to comment

I personally would not publish the cache as described in the original post. The container and the logbook/logsheet should be separate. The thought behind this is that you should be able to change out the logbook/logsheet when it is full, without having to swap out a totally new container as well (since the container and logbook/logsheet are one and the same in the example).

 

The book is 40 pages. Even if 35 are unusable because they had been removed that still leaves 5 pages, front and back. Easily room for 500 signatures. How is that not acceptable when there are nano's that bately have room for your initials?

Link to comment

I personally would not publish the cache as described in the original post. The container and the logbook/logsheet should be separate. The thought behind this is that you should be able to change out the logbook/logsheet when it is full, without having to swap out a totally new container as well (since the container and logbook/logsheet are one and the same in the example).

 

The book is 40 pages. Even if 35 are unusable because they had been removed that still leaves 5 pages, front and back. Easily room for 500 signatures. How is that not acceptable when there are nano's that bately have room for your initials?

I don't think Cascade Reviewer mentioned size, so, whether it's a nano with a dinky little strip of paper, barely big enough for my initials, or a great big honking ammo can with a spiral notebook inside is mostly irrelevant. What matters is, in both of these examples, the distinction betwixt container and log are unmistakable. In the example CR was discussing, the distinction is less clear. If I were a Reviewer, and Groundspeak told me I should not publish caches in which the container and the log were essentially the same critter, I would not publish it either.

Link to comment

I don't think T.D.M.22 comment is really about size per se.

 

Cascade Reviewers comment:

 

"The container and the logbook/logsheet should be separate. The thought behind this is that you should be able to change out the logbook/logsheet when it is full, without having to swap out a totally new container as well (since the container and logbook/logsheet are one and the same in the example)."

 

Implies (to me at least) that the logic behind this rule is related to maintainability. That there is something wrong with needing to replace with a "totally new container" rather than just replacing the log.

 

While I think T.D.M.22's point is that a book with many sheets will need less maintenance than other caches which meet the container rule.

 

Think about it. A 200 page book sitting on the shelf is not allowed as you have to swap out the entire "container" when the log is full. Put the 200 page book in a box, you still need to replace the book when it is full.

 

Now none of this matters if the rule is there must be a container, there must be a container.

Link to comment

So we have two Reviewers (so far) chiming in that a cache's logbook must be seperate from the cache container and replaceable without replacing the container (which overlaps with recent rulings against 'flat stanley' magnet-with-logsheet-affixed caches). However, while I can understand why they are interpreting the Guidelines this way, this also doesn't seem so obvious from the Guidelines. And stuff like this is exactly why cachers rage against the reviewers for alledgedly making up their own rules. Maybe it's time for not only the short Guidelines but a much longer Comprehensive Rules document as well? This would cut down on reviewers interpreting the same guideline different ways.

Link to comment

I didn't anticipate that my initial post would cause such avid discussion. :)

 

I've always been a pretty big proponent of "the slippery slope" concept. I think that my job as a reviewer is to take the guidelines, and take what I've been told by Groundspeak, and do things pretty much to the letter of the law. Otherwise, I start getting into judgement calls and who knows where that starts leading over time? I feel if every reviewer did that, there wouldn't be so much angst about different reviewers interpreting things differently and we'd all be on the same page across the board.

 

But I understand that in cases like this, it's an extremely grey area. I can see both sides of it, that in this case even though it is not a separate container and logbook/logsheet, it probably meets the spirit of the guideline.

 

The nice thing, is in a case like this, I would probably think that this is a fine idea, but it's not my job to make that decision, because I didn't create the guidelines. I would encourage the cache owner to appeal to Groundspeak, in the knowledge that Groundspeak, as the guidelines makers, could decide to make the exception and allow the cache to be published. To me, that's the proper process in these sorts of cases.

 

I was discussing this with my husband this morning, and I likened it to these cop shows where they go into a business and ask for a list of clients, and the manager says that they don't want to break the trust of the customers by giving over the list. The cops will say that they can just get a warrant, and then they will get the list anyway. The manager responds by saying, even though the end result is the same, at least the manager is maintaining their integrity in the eyes of their clients by upholding the policies, even if in the end they still have to hand over the list.

 

Long post, hopefully it tells you where I'm coming from.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...