Jump to content

You Can't Do That


L0ne.R
Followers 9

Recommended Posts

This thread is for posting examples of caches which violate the guidelines.

 

Don't out the cache owner or post GC codes.If you have a photo to help illustrate the point, you might want to post it.

What might also be helpful is to provide ways to re-work the cache so it meets guidelines.

I envision this as a what-not-to-do public service announcement. Hopefully it will serve as a good place to point newbies to to show examples of how not to hide a cache.

 

Here's my first contribution:

20361692-ee22-43f8-88d2-131a426152cc_l.jpg

Note the 3 screws that attach the reel to the tree.

To make it meet guidelines the line could be wrapped around the branch of a tree.

11f01ce5-05ff-4cef-840a-50bdbb7bf054.jpg

Link to comment

I'm seeing more and more guideline breakers, approximately once every 50 cache finds. Might help to illustrate and remind all of us about what is not allowed.

 

I'm hoping for confirmation from reviewers too, so that it doesn't become too much of a bickering match along the lines of "It's a cool cache so the guideline violation should be ignored".

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment
Note the 3 screws that attach the reel to the tree.

 

To make it meet guidelines the line could be wrapped around the branch of a tree.

Another approach I've seen for "bear bag" caches is to use nylon straps to secure carabiners to a branch, and to tie a ring into the rope. To raise the cache, you just pull the rope until you can hook the ring into the carabiner, then bundle up the extra rope. To lower the cache, you just unhook the ring and let out the rope.

 

--

 

It's been a while, but I once found a cache placed by a new owner that used a cup hook screwed into a pruned branch. My suggestion to him was either to make the cache a hanger by adding a wire hook to the cache, or to use a nylon strap to secure a hook, velcro, or other attachment mechanism to the branch.

Edited by niraD
Link to comment

I'm seeing more and more guideline breakers, approximately once every 50 cache finds. Might help to illustrate and remind all of us about what is not allowed.

 

I'm hoping for confirmation from reviewers too, so that it doesn't become too much of a bickering match along the lines of "It's a cool cache so the guideline violation should be ignored".

 

Agreed. This thread could be useful for new cachers to demonstrate how not to hide a cache.

 

IMHO, "it's a cool cache" should never be an excuse for a guideline violation. If it was, who decides whether or not a cache is cool enough? If you (the general you) want to allow reviewers to make that determination then you're also putting reviewers into the position of determining that a cache is *not* cool enough to be immune to guideline violations. If reviewers were put into that position I would suspect that we'd lose a lot of reviewers.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment
Note the 3 screws that attach the reel to the tree.

 

To make it meet guidelines the line could be wrapped around the branch of a tree.

Another approach I've seen for "bear bag" caches is to use nylon straps to secure carabiners to a branch, and to tie a ring into the rope. To raise the cache, you just pull the rope until you can hook the ring into the carabiner, then bundle up the extra rope. To lower the cache, you just unhook the ring and let out the rope.

 

--

 

It's been a while, but I once found a cache placed by a new owner that used a cup hook screwed into a pruned branch. My suggestion to him was either to make the cache a hanger by adding a wire hook to the cache, or to use a nylon strap to secure a hook, velcro, or other attachment mechanism to the branch.

 

Thanks for the "bear bag" tip. I found an illustration that I think illustrates what you've described:

 

san_diego.gif

 

Link to comment

Then there are the caches that are in a grey area. I have seen two caches (different CO's, 800 miles apart) that were hooked to an old nail in a tree. It was obvious that the nail was already there when the cache was created, because there were several other nails in the same tree. Is it OK to re-use a nail in a tree? On the one hand, it was already there, and the CO is just making use of what's available. On the other hand, new cachers can get the idea that sticking nails in trees is OK when creating a cache.

 

Skye.

Link to comment

Then there are the caches that are in a grey area. I have seen two caches (different CO's, 800 miles apart) that were hooked to an old nail in a tree. It was obvious that the nail was already there when the cache was created, because there were several other nails in the same tree. Is it OK to re-use a nail in a tree? On the one hand, it was already there, and the CO is just making use of what's available. On the other hand, new cachers can get the idea that sticking nails in trees is OK when creating a cache.

 

Skye.

This demonstrates why it would not be advisable for a "new" cache to use an "old" nail. Just don't do it, and we will stop perpetuating guideline violations in these cases of, "I saw so-and-so do it, so it should be fine!"...

Link to comment

Here's another example of a cache I found recently, but I picked a photo that I found on the web that illustrates this cache hide.

This one is questionable. I would love to hear from reviewers if this is a guideline breaker or not.

 

civil-war-grave-marker-16900569.jpg

 

The bison tube is under the cemetery's numbered marker, the numbered marker is located below the gravestone. You have to lift the numbered marker to get the bison tube (actually no longer a bison tube but only a baggie with a scrap of paper -- but I digress).

 

Is it a guideline breaker?

 

If yes, what if the numbered brick is at the gravesite of a geocacher's father?

 

On another tangent, what if the marker were in a pet cemetery? Does it matter if it's a pet marker that's being lifted versus a human marker?

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

Wrapping something around a limb can do a lot more damage then the nothing that a nail or screw will do.

 

True, it can, but it's not a violation of the guidelines....until it starts causing damage. The cache owner should monitor, watch, and prevent damage. The caching community can also report the beginning signs of damage.

 

A pulley system can be rigged so that it doesn't cause damage. A zip tie or other tie can be monitored and removed and replaced when necessary.

 

Comes down to responsible geocaching.

Link to comment
Thanks for the "bear bag" tip. I found an illustration that I think illustrates what you've described:
Actually, it was more like this:

c60ae5b9-7574-4575-aa7a-62b19279f8c3.gif

 

Wrapping something around a limb can do a lot more damage then the nothing that a nail or screw will do.
Sure, you can girdle the trunk or a limb. Or you can use a nylon strap in a responsible way, in a way that doesn't harm the tree in any way.
Link to comment

Here's another example of a cache I found recently, but I picked a photo that I found on the web that illustrates this cache hide.

This one is questionable. I would love to hear from reviewers if this is a guideline breaker or not.

 

civil-war-grave-marker-16900569.jpg

 

The bison tube is under the cemetery's numbered marker, the numbered marker is located below the gravestone. You have to lift the numbered marker to get the bison tube (actually no longer a bison tube but only a baggie with a scrap of paper -- but I digress).

 

Is it a guideline breaker?

 

If yes, what if the numbered brick is at the gravesite of a geocacher's father?

 

On another tangent, what if the marker were in a pet cemetery? Does it matter if it's a pet marker that's being lifted versus a human marker?

 

Imo, it's not really a good idea. On the other hand, i don't think any of the above examples break gc guidelines.

 

I'm seeing more and more guideline breakers, approximately once every 50 cache finds.

 

For me, i would guesstimate about 50 as well. But that's only because i'm usually picky about which caches i choose to go after. Now, it would be more like every 5th hide if i went for parking lot, guardrails, and electrical type hides. Saying this because i know that permission from the property owner was probably not asked for or given for these caches.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

Wrapping something around a limb can do a lot more damage then the nothing that a nail or screw will do.

 

The "no nails/screws" in trees guideline has nothing to do with damage to trees.

 

That's my undwerstanding as well. I believe it was to support good relations with park managers who might blow a gasket on seeing something nailed to a tree.

 

We have a multi cache in a Minnesota state park right now where one of the stages is chained to a tree using a 3/8" lag screw. It was put there by a park ranger and approved by a reviewer. Damage to the tree? I don't think that's the real issue.

Link to comment

The guidelines are there for a reason. Ignoring them causes problems for everyone by getting geocaching banned from areas. The buried cache guideline does not read "Geocaches are never buried, unless you have permission", it reads "Geocaches are never buried".

 

As for guideline-violating caches, I too am seeing an increase. I think it's due to a monkey-see, monkey-do attitude coupled with an increase in the number of people hiding caches. If we could deal with the existing violators, it would help cut down on the number of people copying the bad ideas. I'll be keeping this thread in mind as I cache and I'll take pictures of problematic caches to share here (with any identifying data like EXIF removed, of course).

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

The guidelines are there for a reason. Ignoring them causes problems for everyone by getting geocaching banned from areas. The buried cache guideline does not read "Geocaches are never buried, unless you have permission", it reads "Geocaches are never buried".

 

As for guideline-violating caches, I too am seeing an increase. I think it's due to a monkey-see, monkey-do attitude coupled with an increase in the number of people hiding caches. If we could deal with the existing violators, it would help cut down on the number of people copying the bad ideas. I'll be keeping this thread in mind as I cache and I'll take pictures of problematic caches to share here (with any identifying data like EXIF removed, of course).

 

One of Groundspeak's Cache of the week (Cache of the month?) entries several years ago was buried.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

Caches can work well within the guidelines, especially the guidelines regarding defacement and damage. Instead of a nail, the bison tube could be moved over to another nearby tree where it can be hung on a branch.

1cea148f074af55729a269750165d53e.jpg

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

Even though guidelines aren't hard sets of rules, I feel like they're still important to have some order to the game. After all, if so many people are playing the game whatever way they want (logging found if not found, logging found if not signing log, logging a find on the same cache multiple times, throwdowns, etc.) it would be too hectic if there were no guidelines and it was basically a free for all and you could hide anywhere (with permission) no matter how damaging it may be. Every type of game has some kind of rules or guidelines to follow, it's the only way a game can be successful. Of course there might be exceptions and I could see how buried caches could get away with it, as long as you don't need any type of tool to dig it out of the ground, but shouldn't other guidelines really be enforced?

 

As a newbie I made sure to read all the guidelines before I found my first cache so I knew what I was doing and tried to make sense of them the best I could. One thing I don't understand is how people get away with hides that go against the guidelines. Are CO's not required to submit pictures/detailed descriptions of their hides to the reviewers when they are submitted, or do reviewers "not care"? Also, if a cache is seriously "wrong", like you have to dig to find it or it's damaging/harming something nearby is it appropriate to use a NM/NA log?

 

Sorry if this is off topic/hijacking this thread, but figured it'd be a good place to ask and understand things a little better.

Link to comment

Are CO's not required to submit pictures/detailed descriptions of their hides to the reviewers when they are submitted, or do reviewers "not care"?

Reviewers care deeply; checking guideline compliance is the heart of our job. But, we can only go off of what the cache owner says, and we hope the CO answers questions truthfully. There's no photo requirement, and descriptions are only as good as the words used.
Also, if a cache is seriously "wrong", like you have to dig to find it or it's damaging/harming something nearby is it appropriate to use a NM/NA log?

Yes. The digging example would be a "Needs Archived" and the damage to surroundings example would be a "Needs Maintenance."

Link to comment

Caches can work well within the guidelines, especially the guidelines regarding defacement and damage. Instead of a nail, the bison tube could be moved over to another nearby tree where it can be hung on a branch.

 

Micro_geocache_in_a_tree_close_up.jpg

 

I think in this example you might be seeing a problem where there is none. The nail looks like it was there well before the bison was hung on it, so why not use it?

 

FWIW I think your idea for this thread is a reasonable one, and is potentially a good way to point out bad ideas to newbies (like some of the earlier posts).

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

On the flip side, what about all the cachers looking for the cache causing damaging by reefing branches, disturbing the ground, generally disturbing an area and leaving great footprints where they should not have been because the didn't read the cache notes properly. Are they breaking the guidelines?

As for hanging stuff from a nail in a tree, I can think of several sites where I investigated placing a cache recently and found nails in trees in bushland left over from previous users like miners, shooters and trappers. Would it be against guidelines if the I hung a cache from a nail or stake in a tree that was put into the tree a hundred years ago for telegraph lines. Especially if it was a cache related to the telegraph line?

Common sense and a little thought should dictate what is right from wrong when setting a cache as with retrieving one. I find that arriving at a cache location to find the cache and the area around the cache looks like a bomb has hit it with a 20 metre circle around the cache totally demolished sometimes makes me wonder why I do it.

Link to comment

Caches can work well within the guidelines, especially the guidelines regarding defacement and damage. Instead of a nail, the bison tube could be moved over to another nearby tree where it can be hung on a branch.

 

I think in this example you might be seeing a problem where there is none. The nail looks like it was there well before the bison was hung on it, so why not use it?

 

FWIW I think your idea for this thread is a reasonable one, and is potentially a good way to point out bad ideas to newbies (like some of the earlier posts).

 

I don't see it as a serious violation, but it is an infraction and could easily be avoided. I wondered about the nail being pre-existing but it's a strange and convenient spot for that nail to have been placed in. Still as WPTC(Skye) pointed out, an available nail is best avoided so that it doesn't give the impression that sticking nails in trees is OK.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment
This cache was in a utlity pole. The cache owner drilled a hole into a roadside pole to fit the film canister (attached to a reflector). The cache was archived by a reviewer.

 

bda10e50e0d004cf5c5f94c61dbc1deb.jpg

I've seen similar hides that have used existing holes. They haven't been in utility poles though. Instead, they've been in breakaway sign posts that have had holes drilled to allow them to breakaway when a car runs into them. Or they've been in other posts that have had holes drilled into them as part of their original installation/construction.
Link to comment
This cache was in a utlity pole. The cache owner drilled a hole into a roadside pole to fit the film canister (attached to a reflector). The cache was archived by a reviewer.

 

bda10e50e0d004cf5c5f94c61dbc1deb.jpg

I've seen similar hides that have used existing holes. They haven't been in utility poles though. Instead, they've been in breakaway sign posts that have had holes drilled to allow them to breakaway when a car runs into them. Or they've been in other posts that have had holes drilled into them as part of their original installation/construction.

 

I feel the same here -- using an existing hole is not a problem, but drilling a hole is a problem.

Link to comment

I've only come across "buried" caches so far - usually fake sprinkler heads or film pots pushed into the ground. Our area must be pretty obedient. :lol: One newbie did a ground-level (buried) cache, but graciously archived it when I explained it was against the guidelines.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

Something many people don't realize is that many of the guidelines are there not primarily to prevent literal damage*, but rather to prevent a negative perception of geocaching. We don't want land managers getting the idea that some caches are buried or nailed to trees, because that gives them a good reason to ban geocaching from their land entirely.

 

So why is a cache buried with permission still a bad thing? Here are just a couple of reasons:

  • A different land manager could see the buried cache and get the idea that buried caches are allowed or even common. This could trigger them to ban geocaching on their land.
  • A new cacher could find the buried cache and get the idea that buried caches are allowed. They could then try to hide a buried cache of their own on other land. When the manager of that other land is told during the permission process that the cache is buried, or learns it's buried after-the-fact, it could trigger them to ban geocaching on their land.

It should also be noted that - while technically allowed within the guidelines - reusing an existing hole or nail can be just as bad. How are the other land manager or new cacher in the above scenarios supposed to know it existed prior to the cache? To them, it just looks like a buried cache or a cache nailed to a tree, and the same result can occur.

 

When you see or hide a cache that might be violating the guidelines, take a moment to think about how a random land manager would perceive the game of geocaching if they stumbled upon the cache with no background information (e.g. whether the hole/nail was pre-existing or not, etc.). If they would object - even if it technically fits within the guidelines - then there's a good chance it's bad for the game.

 

* ...though the prevention of literal damage is certainly a part of it

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

If you look at the guidelines page it's actually called: Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

 

In other words, some of those guidelines actually *are* requirements, which, to me is effectively synonymous with a "rule". For example, in the list of Fundamental Placement Guides is:

 

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.

 

 

 

This is not a guideline. It does not say that it's okay to dig a hole when placing a cache if it's on the owners property. It does not say that it's okay if you live in Belgium. It says never.

 

So why are there caches out there that are buried? There are two simple reason.

 

The first is that the caches was placed before this text was added to the guidelines (Mingo, for example).

The second is that when a cache listing is submitted the reviewer has to trust that the submitter, who check the "I have read and understand the guidelines" did, in fact, read, understand, and has complied with the guidelines. Although the proximity, and permissions guidelines may be verifiable, cache hiders are not required to describe *how* the cache was hidden and reviewers are not going to go out and investigate every cache before hitting the published button. Once the cache is published it's up to us to report caches which violate the guidelines but way too many care more about adding a +1 to their find count and avoiding any sort of confrontation with cache hiders than to report a cache which might create a negative perception among land managers.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

I don't have a picture, but a couple of years ago we found a cache that had a hole drilled into the end of a pruned pine tree branch with a bison tube shoved in that had some bark glued to the end.

Was that ever a tough one! Very creative, but of course, against the guidelines.

For the purposes of this thread, the cache could have been just as hard, given the pine tree environment if it was covered in the same bark and hung near a vertical branch.

No holes needed to be drilled.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

The first is that the caches was placed before this text was added to the guidelines (Mingo, for example).

The second is that when a cache listing is submitted the reviewer has to trust that the submitter, who check the "I have read and understand the guidelines" did, in fact, read, understand, and has complied with the guidelines. Although the proximity, and permissions guidelines may be verifiable, cache hiders are not required to describe *how* the cache was hidden and reviewers are not going to go out and investigate every cache before hitting the published button. Once the cache is published it's up to us to report caches which violate the guidelines but way too many care more about adding a +1 to their find count and avoiding any sort of confrontation with cache hiders than to report a cache which might create a negative perception among land managers.

 

I found a cache that was on the back of a magnetized Post Office sign stuck onto a Post Office relay box. Definitely against the guidelines.

Link to comment

I'll give another example of a cache that breaks the guidelines. The cache is screwed to the cemetery memorial bench. Not of the deceased mentioned in the cache description. A sentimental cache for a family member who is buried nearby and I'm sure the cache owner means well, but it is screwed to a bench that does not belong to the cache owner's family:

 

9dac3461b107d7fcb9310f2f62f3278c.jpg

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

I don't have any photos, but a local cacher was fond of screwing a metal plate into a tree near an obvious metal object, putting a magkey on the plate, and giving the hint as "magnetic".

 

On the one hand it was clever misdirection. On the other it was screwing into a tree. One of the hides was particularly problematic because the nearby metal object was a utility box. Even though the CO said on the cache page that the hide wasn't in or on the box it appeared cachers kept fiddling with the box anyway while seeking the cache.

 

Another local CO unscrewed part of a metal bridge railing to remove a metal block about the size of a matchbox. He then dremilled a cavity into it big enough to hold a baggie with log. You had to unscrewed part of the railing to get the log. After it was archived, the CO quit geocaching in a huff.

Link to comment

If you look at the guidelines page it's actually called: Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

 

In other words, some of those guidelines actually *are* requirements, which, to me is effectively synonymous with a "rule". For example, in the list of Fundamental Placement Guides is:

 

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.

 

 

 

This is not a guideline. It does not say that it's okay to dig a hole when placing a cache if it's on the owners property. It does not say that it's okay if you live in Belgium. It says never.

 

So why are there caches out there that are buried? There are two simple reason.

 

The first is that the caches was placed before this text was added to the guidelines (Mingo, for example).

The second is that when a cache listing is submitted the reviewer has to trust that the submitter, who check the "I have read and understand the guidelines" did, in fact, read, understand, and has complied with the guidelines. Although the proximity, and permissions guidelines may be verifiable, cache hiders are not required to describe *how* the cache was hidden and reviewers are not going to go out and investigate every cache before hitting the published button. Once the cache is published it's up to us to report caches which violate the guidelines but way too many care more about adding a +1 to their find count and avoiding any sort of confrontation with cache hiders than to report a cache which might create a negative perception among land managers.

 

I'll add one other reason why I think people ignore the 'do not deface or damage' guideline - favorite points. The reel gets a lot of great comments and favorite points. Screw something elaborate to a tree and people think it's really cool and unique. Yeah it's unique, because most people adhere to the guidelines and don't screw items into the tree. The caches in my area that use the rope-tied-to-a-branch technique get favorite points usually around the 15-35% mark, but the reel cache has a 90% favorite point rate. One of the comments says 'You've got to be crazy not to give this a favorite point' (the comment came from a power cacher). And the people logging finds and praising the hide, are seasoned cachers, years of experience. I don't think that this growing attitude is doing a service to the game. It looks bad. Imagine the conservation authority finding it, looking up the cache in order to get it archived and seeing all the 2-thumbs-up comments.

 

The cache owner is a good guy. Strives to put out good caches and has never broken guidelines before, so this really surprised me, and the reaction by the caching community surprises me. My guess is by trying to impress and not produce the same-old-same-old cache strung up in a tree cache (I've found about 6 of this kind of hide in my area this summer), the envelope was pushed.

 

Not that I denigrate favorite points, I still think FPs are a great tool. I think I'm mostly dismayed at the increase of damage/defacement and the applauding of it by the established caching community. I had assumed seasoned cachers knew better and wouldn't encourage it.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment
AS for the OP I don't have a picture, but a couple of years ago we found a cache that had a hole drilled into the end of a pruned pine tree branch with a bison tube shoved in that had some bark glued to the end.

Was that ever a tough one! Very creative, but of course, against the guidelines.

For the purposes of this thread, the cache could have been just as hard, given the pine tree environment if it was covered in the same bark and hung near a vertical branch.

No holes needed to be drilled.

I've seen a similar cache that complied with the guidelines. It used a natural hole in the tree. The cache was a micro-sized container that fit easily into the hole. The owner added soft foam to the outside of the cache so that it fit into the hole like a custom-fit plug. Then he added bark (similar to the tree's actual bark) to the exposed end.
Link to comment
I don't have any photos, but a local cacher was fond of screwing a metal plate into a tree near an obvious metal object, putting a magkey on the plate, and giving the hint as "magnetic".

 

On the one hand it was clever misdirection. On the other it was screwing into a tree. One of the hides was particularly problematic because the nearby metal object was a utility box. Even though the CO said on the cache page that the hide wasn't in or on the box it appeared cachers kept fiddling with the box anyway while seeking the cache.

If the goal is to justify the hint "magnetic" for a cache that is not attached to a magnetic structure, then all you need is a magnetic container, or a plastic container with a magnet in it. I've found caches where the CO intended seekers to use a magnet (or a magnetic compass) to turn a needle-in-a-haystack hide into a much more findable hide.

 

And of course, there's always the cache described (accurately) as "a magnetic keyholder", but hidden under a UPS, or in some other non-magnetic way.

 

Another local CO unscrewed part of a metal bridge railing to remove a metal block about the size of a matchbox. He then dremilled a cavity into it big enough to hold a baggie with log. You had to unscrewed part of the railing to get the log.
That is so unnecessary. I've found caches that mimicked part of an existing structure. The classic magnetic bolt cache falls into this category. And more elaborate versions have been posted to the CCC thread, such as a resin casting of a bridge's "maximum load" plate that was held in place magnetically, and that had a hollow space in the back for a log sheet.
Link to comment

I have no idea why those buried caches in Belgium are allowed to be published and why the existing ones haven't been archived by HQ yet. It really doesn't make any sense. One of the most fundamental requirements of hiding is that geocaches are never buried. Groundspeak spells that out very clearly in the guidelines. It looks bad when they say "never buried...unless you live in Belgium". I think some guidelines can be given slack in certain situations without harming the game but the never buried rule should NEVER be broken, anywhere.

If you think it's ok to bury caches because the landowner doesn't mind, fine, go dig up the countryside, bury your caches and start your own geocaching website to publish them. Why they are published on this site is mystifying.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

I have no idea why those buried caches in Belgium are allowed to be published and why the existing ones haven't been archived by HQ yet. It really doesn't make any sense. One of the most fundamental requirements of hiding is that geocaches are never buried. Groundspeak spells that out very clearly in the guidelines. It looks bad when they say "never buried...unless you live in Belgium". I think some guidelines can be given slack in certain situations without harming the game but the never buried rule should NEVER be broken, anywhere.

If you think it's ok to bury caches because the landowner doesn't mind, fine, go dig up the countryside, bury your caches and start your own geocaching website to publish them. Why they are published on this site is mystifying.

 

There was a cache published here in Jersey a few years ago that is very explicitly buried. In fact, it's in a pvc pipe about two feet into the ground. CO went back and forth with our local reviewer until he finally got it approved. Evidently, the fact that it is on his front lawn is what eventually got it approved. It's still active to this day, and has lots and lots of favorite points. No big surprise there.

Edited by Keystone
quoted off topic material removed by moderator
Link to comment

Are Belgian property owners generally fine with people randomly digging holes in their property?

 

If you would have read everything you would have seen the "OK with landowner" part. If the landowner is not OK with it then no burying of course.

 

Oh, BTW, it's not only in Belgium I've seen buried caches. Of course, I only have a small amount of finds in other countries.

Edited by on4bam
Link to comment

Are Belgian property owners generally fine with people randomly digging holes in their property?

 

If you would have read everything you would have seen the "OK with landowner" part. If the landowner is not OK with it then no burying of course.

 

Oh, BTW, it's not only in Belgium I've seen buried caches. Of course, I only have a small amount of finds in other countries.

 

Presumably each CO places an obvious sign next to their buried cache which reads something like:

 

This buried cache does not comply with Groundspeak guidelines - but it's OK because the landowner in this case has granted permission for the cache to be buried. If you think that this buried cache is a cool idea and you'd like to copy it, please ensure that you have landowner permission and place a sign like this at GZ so that everyone can tell the difference between a buried cache that's acceptable to the landowner (but still contravenes the guidelines) and a buried cache that is neither acceptable to the landowner or and/or Groundspeak.

 

Yes? :)

Link to comment

9dac3461b107d7fcb9310f2f62f3278c.jpg

 

Is it just me or does this cache look stupid - not only in its contravention of the guidelines but also in the fact that it smacks of something that's been 'hidden' by a 2 year old?

 

What makes CO's and finders think this sort of thing has any value whatsoever is beyond me :blink:

 

I assume the problem for purposes of this thread is the method of attachment. It can't be magnetic unless the wood has nails. Is it nailed or screwed in? Glued on?

 

Edit: noticed the earlier post & found the answer.

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

9dac3461b107d7fcb9310f2f62f3278c.jpg

 

Is it just me or does this cache look stupid - not only in its contravention of the guidelines but also in the fact that it smacks of something that's been 'hidden' by a 2 year old?

 

What makes CO's and finders think this sort of thing has any value whatsoever is beyond me :blink:

 

I assume the problem for purposes of this thread is the method of attachment. It can't be magnetic unless the wood has nails. Is it nailed or screwed in? Glued on?

 

Edit: noticed the earlier post & found the answer.

 

It was screwed on.

 

 

Link to comment

9dac3461b107d7fcb9310f2f62f3278c.jpg

 

Is it just me or does this cache look stupid - not only in its contravention of the guidelines but also in the fact that it smacks of something that's been 'hidden' by a 2 year old?

 

What makes CO's and finders think this sort of thing has any value whatsoever is beyond me :blink:

 

I assume the problem for purposes of this thread is the method of attachment. It can't be magnetic unless the wood has nails. Is it nailed or screwed in? Glued on?

 

Edit: noticed the earlier post & found the answer.

 

I'd say the purpose of this thread is to demonstrate the stupidity and pointlessness of some of the things cache hiders will do - and cache finders will tolerate or even award favourite points to - as much as it is to guess at possible methods of attachment.

Link to comment
The cache is screwed to the cemetery memorial bench. Not of the deceased mentioned in the cache description. A sentimental cache for a family member who is buried nearby and I'm sure the cache owner means well, but it is screwed to a bench that does not belong to the cache owner's family:

 

9dac3461b107d7fcb9310f2f62f3278c.jpg

I've seen benches like that support a cache without violating the guidelines. One way is to slip extra strips of wood into the gaps between the seat boards, about as thick as the gaps, and about as long as the thickness of the concrete supports. One of those strips is hollowed out to hold a log.

 

And one of my favorite cemetery caches was in an active cemetery, and was placed next to the headstone in compliance with the cemetery's policy allowing families to leave memorial items at grave sites.

Link to comment
The guidelines have changed over time and there are still caches out there that met guidelines when they were hidden, but maybe not now.
Sure, there are caches that are grandfathered. But if someone wants to hide a cache like that now, then perhaps this thread can suggest similar alternatives that don't violate the current (interpretation of the) guidelines.
Link to comment

I'll add one other reason why I think people ignore the 'do not deface or damage' guideline - favorite points.

...

I think I'm mostly dismayed at the increase of damage/defacement and the applauding of it by the established caching community. I had assumed seasoned cachers knew better and wouldn't encourage it.

Yes, I've been seeing the same thing. Basically, the more guidelines a cache violates, the more favourite points it receives.

 

I've encountered a number of caches screwed to trees that had loads of FPs. While I found some of them neat enough to normally warrant a FP, I couldn't in good conscience award it to them and further encourage such behaviour. I didn't do anything else about the caches at the time, but my attitude has shifted even more since I encountered these caches and I now might consider contacting the CO about the issues, or even going straight to a reviewer/NA in more extreme cases.

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 9
×
×
  • Create New...