Jump to content

You Can't Do That


L0ne.R
Followers 9

Recommended Posts

The guidelines have changed over time and there are still caches out there that met guidelines when they were hidden, but maybe not now.

Understood. However, in addition to niraD's comment about setting an example for future caches, some of the guidelines are so long-standing that there are relatively few grandfathered caches and we're pretty safe to be discussing them. For example, the buried cache guideline has been in place since February or March 2001, albeit with more liberal wording at that time:

Please do not bury the container unless you have express permission of the landowner or manager. If the cache is far enough away from trafficked areas, your cache should be fine.

It seems that the exception allowing buried caches with permission was removed with the creation of the more familiar "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines" on November 5, 2003:

Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

...

• Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

 

Similarly, the no-defacement guideline was introduced over 10 years ago on February 14, 2005:

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

...

• Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

 

We'll just need to keep these dates in mind when posting caches in this discussion.

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.

Understood. However, in addition to niraD's comment about setting an example for future caches, some of the guidelines are so long-standing that there are relatively few grandfathered caches and we're pretty safe to be discussing them. For example, the buried cache guideline has been in place since February or March 2001, albeit with more liberal wording at that time:

Please do not bury the container unless you have express permission of the landowner or manager. If the cache is far enough away from trafficked areas, your cache should be fine.

It seems that the exception allowing buried caches with permission was removed with the creation of the more familiar "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines" on November 5, 2003:

Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

...

• Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

 

Similarly, the no-defacement guideline was introduced over 10 years ago on February 14, 2005:

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

...

• Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

 

We'll just need to keep these dates in mind when posting caches in this discussion.

 

Actually I don't think we need to do that for this thread. LoneR can correct me but my assumption was the thread was for showing examples or describing caches which would violate the guidelines if placed today. I could post a photo of Mingo and it would show a cache which, at time it was placed, did not violate the guidelines, but "you can't do that" today.

 

 

 

Link to comment

I have another grey area case, related to the 'no buried caches' guideline, that I would like to hear opinions on. This one is a variation of 'does it matter if the nail was already in the tree'? This one is, 'does it matter if the post is already in the ground'?

 

Take a birdhouse cache. A nice bird house attached to a post stuck into the ground? A 'rules lawyer' could argue that the cache is just the birdhouse, and the post is simply what the cache is attached to, and therefore does not violate the guidelines. But wait, there's more! Would it make a difference if the post was placed by the CO specifically for the birdhouse cache? Does that change things?

 

In some respects, it kinda depends on the definition of just where the cache container ends, and where the surroundings begin. Most caches rely, to varying degrees, on their surroundings. It is rare to find a cache just out in the open. Ammo cans in the woods may be under a rock pile, or leaves, or sticks. (We may even go so far as to say the cache is buried under the pine needles, but we know that this is not the same 'buried' as in the guidelines.) Then there is my example above. The birdhouse cache requires a tree, post, building to attach it to. If the post is added specifically for the cache, is it part of the cache?

 

On a bit of a tangent, we can even go extreme. What about a giant walk-in geocache? A small building (maybe it resembles an ammo can?), set on concrete footings in the ground. You have to dig for the footing, would this be allowed?

 

Your opinions on this are appreciated. Myself, I'm mostly OK with these, but it is because the digging is not integral to the cache, and it was approved by the land managers. In some case, the digging was done by the land managers. Not trying to out them, but there are a couple that are part of a GeoTour. As for my extreme example, it was on private property, built by the home owner. The square footage probably did not require getting a building permit.

 

Skye.

Link to comment

 

Take a birdhouse cache. A nice bird house attached to a post stuck into the ground? A 'rules lawyer' could argue that the cache is just the birdhouse, and the post is simply what the cache is attached to, and therefore does not violate the guidelines. But wait, there's more! Would it make a difference if the post was placed by the CO specifically for the birdhouse cache? Does that change things?

 

I believe there was a cache of the month, featured on the gc blog, that was a sign "attached to a post in the ground" with the cache attached behind it. The post seemed to be new, i.e. not an old empty post that was found in place and then used by the CO. I thought immediately that it violated the no "digging/buried" rule.

 

Edit to add: the current geocache of the week has a concrete footing that undoubtedly required quite a bit of digging... :ph34r:

Edited by Uncle Alaska
Link to comment

I have another grey area case, related to the 'no buried caches' guideline, that I would like to hear opinions on. This one is a variation of 'does it matter if the nail was already in the tree'? This one is, 'does it matter if the post is already in the ground'?

 

Take a birdhouse cache. A nice bird house attached to a post stuck into the ground? A 'rules lawyer' could argue that the cache is just the birdhouse, and the post is simply what the cache is attached to, and therefore does not violate the guidelines. But wait, there's more! Would it make a difference if the post was placed by the CO specifically for the birdhouse cache? Does that change things?

 

 

If you find an old post and use it as part of your cache hide: not an issue. If the CO digs the hole and places the post, then it violates the "no digging" guideline.

Link to comment

 

If you find an old post and use it as part of your cache hide: not an issue. If the CO digs the hole and places the post, then it violates the "no digging" guideline.

 

But if you put up a post one day, the next day it will be an old post.... See how silly some of this nitpicking over the guidelines can get. You all would make much better use of your time if you would go out and find more caches. I for one appreciate those who go to the trouble of building an interesting cache whether they place it on an old post or a new post.

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.

^ THIS. That's really a big deal.

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.

^ THIS. That's really a big deal.

The perceptions are from other land managers, not from the landowner that gave permission. For example, suppose someone that manages a park in Colorado is on a vacation in Florida. He's on a trail and sees people pull an ammo can out of a box that's been buried in the ground. He inquires what they're doing and they explain geocaching to him. The land manager then perceives that geocaching means digging holes in the ground.

 

A month later, this land manager receives a request from a Colorado cacher that wants to place geocaches in the Colorado park. Since he perceives that geocachers dig holes in the ground to hide caches, then he's unlikely to approve the cache placement.

OR, upon returning to Colorado after his vacation, the land manager establishes a 'no geocaching' policy in the park he manages, since he perceives that geocachers dig holes in the ground to hide caches.

 

The Colorado land manager is not a geocacher, so he's not going to automatically know that the buried cache in Florida was granted permission by the landowner/manager...and he's unlikely to investigate to find out that permission was granted.

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

Take a birdhouse cache. A nice bird house attached to a post stuck into the ground? A 'rules lawyer' could argue that the cache is just the birdhouse, and the post is simply what the cache is attached to, and therefore does not violate the guidelines. But wait, there's more! Would it make a difference if the post was placed by the CO specifically for the birdhouse cache? Does that change things?

Again, it comes back to the perception of land managers, other cachers (including new ones), and even the public in general. While the pre-existing post scenario would be allowed under the guidelines, someone unfamiliar with the cache has no way of knowing that the post was pre-existing. With a birdhouse on a tree, it's unlikely that they'll think the cacher placed the tree specifically for the cache. With a birdhouse on a post, there's a better chance that they could think that the post was placed specifically for the cache.

 

Something else you didn't mention was how your theoretical birdhouse was "attached". If the post was pre-existing, screwing the birdhouse to it could fall under the "no damage or defacement" guideline.

 

Aren't the guidelines fun? :laughing:

Link to comment

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

 

Physical damage to the tree, perhaps, but the guideline is not about that (nor is the the place to debate that guideline). The guideline is about land manager's perception of geocaching. There are many threads here about that aspect of the guidelines.

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.

 

That would not the first honored cache that broke the guidelines, as I recall. They really need to watch that better.

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

Yeh, I think the whole problem is people seeing problems when there are no problems and finding glee in the micromanagment of other people over these perceived problems. Guidelines by definition are NOT hard set rule of law, private land or permission should excuse a guideline where its reasonable. Often a partially buried cache is far less intrusive then a Tupperware container looking more like litter, and a nail in a tree better then a chain strangling around the whole thing. Common sense and judgement people, use it.

 

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

 

 

 

Is it OK to nail a bison tube to a cheeta?

Link to comment

Here's one (no photo to add, but not hard to understand):

A micro was hidden by a CO, and then found to be on land managed by a party with a firm, clear, "NO GEOCACHING" policy. The Reviewer asked them to move it away from that land. The owner obliged, and found coordinates that appeared to solve the issue. Cache lives on for a long time without issues...until an important detail was noted:

 

The cache was moved from the original coordinates clearly within the property boundary to a piece of property owned and maintained by the land managing party.

 

Oversight? Fudged coordinates? New coordinates taken with error that placed it just outside the property line?

 

Either way, not a good example to set. Did not really address the clear issues the Reviewer tried to deal with from the guidelines either. Many times logged by geocachers, and not a single NM or NA log from any of the folks who logged the find.

 

So, how many people now saw that cache on the land manager's property, and assumed that that cache was either allowed because of permission (it wasn't), or because they were not aware of this land manager's stated policy, "NO GEOCACHING"? MANY hundreds of people, that's how many.

 

Perception=Important.

Link to comment

This thread has the possibility of serving as a positive, educational discussion about cache placements that violate a listing guideline. I agree with those who have commented about the discussion being taken off topic by complaints about the "cache police," complaints about posting images with geolocation data, etc. All of those off topic posts have been moved to a "Quarantine" thread, along with the posts complaining about the off topic posts.

 

Going forward, off topic posts in this thread will be hidden from view, and the poster will be asked to leave this discussion. This includes any posts which attempt to respond to this one.

 

That said, please carry on with the discussion of guideline violation examples! I'll be happy to provide a reviewer's perspective, when appropriate.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

Another example of "You can't do that...":

 

Cache was placed in what, I'm sure to the owners, was a great location. In all honesty, it was: a remote, meaningful, interesting site that featured both the location and some unique local biology. The owners placed the cache on a structure in a non-invasive way, and selected an appropriate container. That's where we diverge from the "good"...

 

The cache was found to have been placed on an item found on lands managed by an unknowing management agency. The cache hiders had very good intentions, and even tracked their "permission" back to a person who they assumed had the level of authority to grant permission. In fact, that person did not. Not even close, in fact, upon closer investigation.

 

That "permission-granter" led them on a tour to the awesome spot, and said it should be "Fine" to place a cache there. Harmless enough, I'm sure. But the fact of the matter was, that person didn't represent anyone that could give permission, let alone give permission for this land which they did not represent.

 

Lastly, from the "you can't do that" rotation, the cache had no maintenance plan, and was many, many hundreds of miles from the mainland on a remote island--quite far and difficult for the owners to maintain the cache. Essentially, this was a "vacation cache".

 

Long story short, the cache was archived, and the container removed and mailed back to the mainland. The owners declined to take the container back.

 

The point? Permission needs to come from the "right" person, not just a person who you think represents the lands you're asking about. Also, you must be able to have a solid maintenance plan where you can respond to needs without a $900 plane ticket, and 5 days of time because of infrequent airline flights.

Link to comment
The point? Permission needs to come from the "right" person, not just a person who you think represents the lands you're asking about.
My approach has been not to ask permission, but to ask who has the authority to grant permission, so I can talk to them.

 

Still, I'm not sure what a cache owner can do when given bad information. If the people you contact tell you that someone has the authority to grant permission, and that someone says it's okay, then I would expect most cache owners to take that at face value.

Edited by niraD
Link to comment
The point? Permission needs to come from the "right" person, not just a person who you think represents the lands you're asking about.
My approach has been not to ask permission, but to ask who has the authority to grant permission, so I can talk to them.

 

Still, I'm not sure what a cache owner can do when given bad information. If the people you contact tell you that someone has the authority to grant permission, and that someone says it's okay, then I would expect most cache owners to take that at face value.

I'm totally with you.

 

Summary for the lands I help manage (and the same thing others are told to tell requestors):

Only a Refuge Manager or Project Lead of a US Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge, Waterfowl Production Area, Wetland Management District, or other USFWS-managed lands (including Administrative sites such as visitor centers, offices, and improved sites such as boardwalks, kiosks, and paths) can grant permission for geocaches on managed lands.

 

The issue arises when a Refuge Manager (RM) or Project Lead (PL) has no idea what geocaching is, and might not take the time to look into it when approached. That's where mistakes are made. They are supposed to take the proposed use and weigh it against all kinds of regulations, including Appropriate Use (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]; Refuge Recreation Act of 1962; Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANICLA); Executive Order 11644; e.g.). After Appropriate Use comes "Compatibility Determination" under many, many more laws, regulations, and policies. A Compatibility Determination is part of a greater requirement of the above, and must be performed for any new use proposed by anyone. A Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan will include appropriate and compatible uses that a RM or PL will reference when making a determination. If "geocaching" is not included in the CCP, that use must go through the process just like anything else (beachcombing, hiking, biking, running/jogging, archaeological digs, etc.).

 

So, the way to do that is a Special Use Permit.

 

Ok, ok, this derails the thread a lot, but is massive context for "Things You Can't Do".

 

-The USFWS has a current, active policy that GEOCACHING IS NOT ALLOWED ON USFWS LANDS.

-SOME Refuges and other USFWS lands do have geocaches on them. In some cases they have the correct permissions granted, and in many, many, many others...they do not.

-SOME Refuges have "Geocaching" within their most recent CCP. That is usually because of a smart, knowledgeable, involved geocacher has worked WITH that Refuge to have it added to the planning process for that Refuge. 99% of Refuges DO NOT have "Geocaching" within their appropriate or compatible use listings.

-99% of RMs and PLs DO NOT know what geocaching is. Many more don't realize that, when faced with a "simple request" from a geocacher to place a cache on their lands, they should be asking for a Special Use Permit from that geocacher.

-The USFWS is working on educating everyone about this "emerging" use, but that TAKES TIME.

-Geocachers are a pushy lot. (Let's be honest here...) We're also really sneaky by nature, and sometimes misrepresent ourselves to get a cache placed. (Deceive the Reviewer; conveniently leave things out of a cache submission; conveniently leave out details of what they're asking to do when they do ask a Land Manager for permission, e.g.)

 

So. You Can't Do This:

  • Take the word of a desk volunteer that it's "ok to geocache here"
  • Ask any general employee at an office for permission
  • Take the word of just any employee of any organization, agency, business, etc. that what you're asking (to place a cache on their land/property) is ok

 

Reviewers are getting more and more up to speed on current policies for an agency like the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, or US Fish and Wildlife Service. (Let alone all of the state and local policies they need to be aware of...) Some have good, current info. Others do not.

 

So you CAN'T look at one piece of property (like a USFWS Refuge, for example) as demonstrating that you "can place a cache there, because I saw someone over at X placed on there...".

 

I've dealt with my fair share of caches that didn't have proper permissions. I've got examples of caches placed on clearly labeled private property, on lands with a supposedly clear NO GEOCACHING policy, and more. So, yeah. I'm passionate about permissions, because I've seen first hand how perception of how we play the game comes across with bad results in the end from Land Managers who don't think we can manage our own game.

 

So...be sure you've asked for permission from the right person, in the right way, and honestly represented what you're asking to do. Don't be 'that guy'...

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment
So, now we're going to talk about permission in this thread?
Well, it is part of the guidelines, and a potential guidelines violation.

 

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.[...]

Link to comment
So, now we're going to talk about permission in this thread?
Well, it is part of the guidelines, and a potential guidelines violation.

 

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.[...]

 

I agree. There was a cache discussed recently that involved some alledged permission issues, including the posting of a no trespassing sign and property maps.

 

Here's one with a twist on the permission issue.

 

lAmxEXk.jpg

 

The cache is behind the Posted Private Property sign. The sign above it shows the property with hiking trails. It is not, in fact, private property but the CO nailed the Private Property sign to the tree to create the cache.

Link to comment
So, now we're going to talk about permission in this thread?
Well, it is part of the guidelines, and a potential guidelines violation.

 

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.[...]

 

Would you post a picture of lack of permission, please? :lol:

Link to comment
So, now we're going to talk about permission in this thread?
Well, it is part of the guidelines, and a potential guidelines violation.

 

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.[...]

 

I agree. There was a cache discussed recently that involved some alledged permission issues, including the posting of a no trespassing sign and property maps.

 

Here's one with a twist on the permission issue.

 

lAmxEXk.jpg

 

The cache is behind the Posted Private Property sign. The sign above it shows the property with hiking trails. It is not, in fact, private property but the CO nailed the Private Property sign to the tree to create the cache.

 

:rolleyes: He posts a picture of lack of permission. :P

Link to comment
The cache is behind the Posted Private Property sign. The sign above it shows the property with hiking trails. It is not, in fact, private property but the CO nailed the Private Property sign to the tree to create the cache.
Two, two, two issues in one!

 

The "nailed to the tree" issue has already been addressed. The sign could be secured in some other manner, such as straps that can expand to avoid girdling the tree.

 

The "posted private property" issue was created by the cache owner. Thus, the cache owner simply needs to avoid creating it. For example, the cache could use a different sign, perhaps even a parody of the standard "posted private property" sign:

 

P O S T E D

PUBLIC PROPERTY

HUNTING, FISHING, OR TRAPPING

WITHOUT A PERMIT IS STRICTLY

FORBIDDEN. PHOTOGRAPHY,

GEOCACHING, AND HIKING

ARE EXPLICITLY ALLOWED

VIOLATORS WILL

BE PROSECUTED

Link to comment
So, now we're going to talk about permission in this thread?
Well, it is part of the guidelines, and a potential guidelines violation.

 

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.[...]

 

Would you post a picture of lack of permission, please? :lol:

 

Sure, here it is:

 

 

 

 

 

(Note absence of an image of an email from the land manager.)

Link to comment

Thank you Keystone for creating a forum thread for discussion of the guidelines.

 

To help people I thought I'd create a list of questions that can be used to keep this topic in check:

 

 

1. This is an example of a guideline violation. Photo (optional). Describe example.

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional).

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How?

 

4. Do you want to discuss the guideline violation? No | Yes (link to You Can't Do That - Discussion thread)

----------

 

1. This is an example of a guideline violation. Photo (optional). Describe example.

790db76da4972416e63f14a27f6fb79b.jpg

The box is fastened to the tree with 5 screws.

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline.

 

Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property.

 

Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How?

The cache can be strapped to the tree and regularly checked for any signs of girdling then re-strapped when needed.

Here's a photo of a birdhouse that is screwed to a plank, then the plank is strapped to a pole using bungee cords.

 

farmhouse_birds2.jpg

 

4. Do you want to discuss the guideline violation? No

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I'm going to re-submit the utility pole example using the 'form'.

 

1. This is an example of a guideline violation. Photo (optional). Describe example.

bda10e50e0d004cf5c5f94c61dbc1deb.jpg

A hole drilled in to a utility pole to fit a film canister.

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline

Propery damage.

Don't Damage Property - Telephone poles and stop signs seem like they are public property because they are so familiar, but they are the property of the city or utility company. Don't damage things in the environment. Screwing or drilling into a live tree creates an inroad for insects and disease. Never bury a cache, even partway. If you have to make a hole in the ground, it's not OK.

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How?

Don't hide it on a utility pole. Find a small hollow in a tree that will fit the film canister with the reflector attached.

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

1. So, you can't dig a hole to place a cache.

 

You also shouldn't dig a hole, fill the hole with cement, leave space for a cache, and then use that dug, cement hole for a cache. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

 

9d1b0493-a85b-43fe-9b4f-89dcd1dfcacf.jpg

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional). I.1.3: "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."

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How? Not really. It could be brought above ground, and the big rock used to cover a cache against the fence post, versus digging a hole at the bend in a rural road.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

1. So, you can't dig a hole to place a cache.

 

You also shouldn't dig a hole, fill the hole with cement, leave space for a cache, and then use that dug, cement hole for a cache. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

 

9d1b0493-a85b-43fe-9b4f-89dcd1dfcacf.jpg

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional). I.1.3: "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."

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How? Not really. It could be brought above ground, and the big rock used to cover a cache against the fence post, versus digging a hole at the bend in a rural road.

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

Link to comment

1. So, you can't dig a hole to place a cache.

 

You also shouldn't dig a hole, fill the hole with cement, leave space for a cache, and then use that dug, cement hole for a cache. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

 

9d1b0493-a85b-43fe-9b4f-89dcd1dfcacf.jpg

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional). I.1.3: "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."

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How? Not really. It could be brought above ground, and the big rock used to cover a cache against the fence post, versus digging a hole at the bend in a rural road.

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

 

That seems like a lot of work right here. There has got to be a better place.

Link to comment

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

 

Like it or not, this is a very valid point.

 

There are bound to be existing features in the environment that can be utilised as hides which, had they been created for the purpose of hiding the cache, would violate the guidelines.

 

The problem is - how do finders tell the difference?

 

Please feel free to move my post to the other thread if this is the wrong one :ph34r:

Link to comment

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

First...whatever. It's a colloquialism for what you're looking at in the picture, and I have no idea what kind of aggregate the cache placer used to make the concrete. For all we know, they poured in cement and they used the surrounding dirt for aggregate to make the form. :anibad:

 

Second...You know what cache this is, don't you? When you know the history of it, it all comes together. Either way, that's not the point. You can't dig to place or find a cache.

Link to comment

1. So, you can't dig a hole to place a cache.

 

You also shouldn't dig a hole, fill the hole with cement, leave space for a cache, and then use that dug, cement hole for a cache. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

 

9d1b0493-a85b-43fe-9b4f-89dcd1dfcacf.jpg

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional). I.1.3: "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."

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How? Not really. It could be brought above ground, and the big rock used to cover a cache against the fence post, versus digging a hole at the bend in a rural road.

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

 

4. Do you want to discuss the guideline violation? Yes (link to You Can't Do That - Discussion thread)

 

Discussion about this famous cache, it's photo history and discussion about the guideline infractions here.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How? Not really. It could be brought above ground, and the big rock used to cover a cache against the fence post, versus digging a hole at the bend in a rural road.
I've found a few below-grade caches that did use existing holes of some kind. So if there happens to be an existing hole where you want to hide the cache, then using it is one way of reworking the cache.

 

But barring that, I think the best similar approach is to build an alternative above-grade camouflage. A fake rock is one approach. A fake tree stump would be another. The CCC thread has lots of ideas.

Link to comment

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

First...whatever. It's a colloquialism for what you're looking at in the picture, and I have no idea what kind of aggregate the cache placer used to make the concrete. For all we know, they poured in cement and they used the surrounding dirt for aggregate to make the form. :anibad:

 

Second...You know what cache this is, don't you? When you know the history of it, it all comes together. Either way, that's not the point. You can't dig to place or find a cache.

 

First, the name matters. Your talking to an architect here...if I started talking about "cement floors", nobody would take me seriously.

 

As for this cache, why would I have known? I don't really make it a point of researching caches around the nation...even well-known ones.

 

Even knowing (which I didn't at first until someone told me), it makes no difference. It doesn't look like digging is taking place to find it. Looks pretty exposed to me. If a hole exists, I see no issue with making use of it. If the hole would not exist without the cache in place, that is one thing...but making use of a reinforced void in the ground does not, in my opinion, violate the guidelines.

Link to comment

4. Do you want to discuss the guideline violation? Yes (link to You Can't Do That - Discussion thread)

 

I think this should be amended as follows.

 

4. Do you want to discuss the possible guideline violation(s)? Yes (link to You Can't Do That - Discussion thread)

 

:)

 

Agreed. Here's the updated list of questions:

 

1. This is an example of a guideline violation. Photo (optional). Describe example.

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional).

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How?

4. Do you want to discuss the possible guideline violation? No | Yes (link to You Can't Do That - Discussion thread)

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

First...whatever. It's a colloquialism for what you're looking at in the picture, and I have no idea what kind of aggregate the cache placer used to make the concrete. For all we know, they poured in cement and they used the surrounding dirt for aggregate to make the form. :anibad:

 

Second...You know what cache this is, don't you? When you know the history of it, it all comes together. Either way, that's not the point. You can't dig to place or find a cache.

 

First, the name matters. Your talking to an architect here...if I started talking about "cement floors", nobody would take me seriously.

 

As for this cache, why would I have known? I don't really make it a point of researching caches around the nation...even well-known ones.

 

Even knowing (which I didn't at first until someone told me), it makes no difference. It doesn't look like digging is taking place to find it. Looks pretty exposed to me. If a hole exists, I see no issue with making use of it. If the hole would not exist without the cache in place, that is one thing...but making use of a reinforced void in the ground does not, in my opinion, violate the guidelines.

 

Replied to this post over here.

Link to comment
So, now we're going to talk about permission in this thread?
Well, it is part of the guidelines, and a potential guidelines violation.

 

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.[...]

 

I agree. There was a cache discussed recently that involved some alledged permission issues, including the posting of a no trespassing sign and property maps.

 

Here's one with a twist on the permission issue.

 

lAmxEXk.jpg

 

The cache is behind the Posted Private Property sign. The sign above it shows the property with hiking trails. It is not, in fact, private property but the CO nailed the Private Property sign to the tree to create the cache.

 

:rolleyes: He posts a picture of lack of permission. :P

The placement of this geocache would get you thrown into jail in Minnesota. It is unlawful to post a no trespassing sign on property not yours.

Be that property public or private.

Link to comment

To help people I thought I'd create a list of questions that can be used to keep this topic in check:

 

 

1. This is an example of a guideline violation. Photo (optional). Describe example.

 

f406d86c-0d4f-4301-a319-aa4dd020f96f.jpg

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional).

 

Bolted into the cover of an inspection well. Damage to existing property. (Not sure why there is an inspection well here.)

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How?

 

I don't see how.

Link to comment
2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional).

 

Bolted into the cover of an inspection well. Damage to existing property. (Not sure why there is an inspection well here.)

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How?

 

I don't see how.

FWIW, I've seen a number of fence post caches where the owner bought a fence post cap to replace one that was missing, and attached the geocache to that replacement fence post cap. So it could be possible to create a similar hide without violating the guidelines.
Link to comment
2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional).

 

Bolted into the cover of an inspection well. Damage to existing property. (Not sure why there is an inspection well here.)

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How?

 

I don't see how.

FWIW, I've seen a number of fence post caches where the owner bought a fence post cap to replace one that was missing, and attached the geocache to that replacement fence post cap. So it could be possible to create a similar hide without violating the guidelines.

 

In this case however, it's probably not wise to be tampering with an inspection well, or replacing its cap.

 

Also regarding replacing caps. Would that be a guideline breaker - removing property to replace it with a game piece (although similar in nature to the original)?

Link to comment
Also regarding replacing caps. Would that be a guideline breaker - removing property to replace it with a game piece (although similar in nature to the original)?
It isn't hard to find a fence post that is missing its cap. Then nothing is being removed. The new one simply replaces one that was already missing.
Link to comment

To help people I thought I'd create a list of questions that can be used to keep this topic in check:

 

 

1. This is an example of a guideline violation. Photo (optional). Describe example.

 

f406d86c-0d4f-4301-a319-aa4dd020f96f.jpg

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional).

 

Bolted into the cover of an inspection well. Damage to existing property. (Not sure why there is an inspection well here.)

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How?

 

I don't see how.

 

Magnetic attachment?

Link to comment
Magnetic attachment?
Depending on how tightly the cap fits over the pipe, it might work as a hanger. A thin sheet-metal hook could fit over the lip of the pipe, and the cap could fit over that. (I'm thinking of something similar to the wreath hangers that hook over the top edge of a door, fitting between the top of the door and the door frame.)
Link to comment

1. This is an example of a guideline violation. Photo (optional). Describe example.

 

f406d86c-0d4f-4301-a319-aa4dd020f96f.jpg

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional).

 

Bolted into the cover of an inspection well. Damage to existing property. (Not sure why there is an inspection well here.)

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How?

 

I don't see how.

 

As someone who gets his drinking water out of a well on my property:

 

1) Opening a well is a high-stakes move. Wells are supposed to be sanitized after opening (any well, not just drinking water wells) which requires chemicals, special processing, and handling. The fact that it's not a drinking water well does not change the fact that stuff going into a well has the potential to enter the aquifer and contaminate people's water supply.

 

2) Risking dropping something in a well is even worse. Not only could it contaminate the water, but it could damage a pump. I had my pump and drop pipe replaced a couple years ago. The pump was $750 and the labor was $1500.

 

This is way beyond screwing a hole in the cover.

Link to comment
Magnetic attachment?
Depending on how tightly the cap fits over the pipe, it might work as a hanger. A thin sheet-metal hook could fit over the lip of the pipe, and the cap could fit over that. (I'm thinking of something similar to the wreath hangers that hook over the top edge of a door, fitting between the top of the door and the door frame.)

 

I would be concerned, as AustinMN mentioned, about the cache dropping into the pipe when it was being removed or replaced. It looks to me that the lid is connected to the pipe with a small angle bracket. It would be fairly easy to use that as a tether point. One could use some braided wire (like one can get for hanging a picture frame) to connect a container such as a bison tube to the pipe. Rubbing a little rust on the wire and it would probably be very hard to notice it when the cap is in place.

 

 

Link to comment
Also regarding replacing caps. Would that be a guideline breaker - removing property to replace it with a game piece (although similar in nature to the original)?
It isn't hard to find a fence post that is missing its cap. Then nothing is being removed. The new one simply replaces one that was already missing.

 

It's a guideline violation regardless of whether a cap was missing or not, if it's not the cache hider's fence or permission from the fence's real owner hasn't been acquired.

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...