Jump to content

You Can't Do That


L0ne.R
Followers 9

Recommended Posts

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.
Okay, I'm confused. Why do I need more permission to place a container attached to a fence post cap, than to place a container by itself? Or to place a container embedded in a fake rock? Or to place a container and any other sort of camouflage?
Link to comment

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

be6ee18f-935e-44cf-991f-76352f877f51_l.jpg

Hole drilled into a utility pole to hide a large bison tube. Planted in 2014. 15% fav points (72 FPs). Still active.

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

4) 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 pathway for insects and disease. Never bury a geocache, 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 see how. Even a pre-existing hole can appear as if it had been drilled by the geocacher.

Edited by L0ne.R
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.
Okay, I'm confused. Why do I need more permission to place a container attached to a fence post cap, than to place a container by itself? Or to place a container embedded in a fake rock? Or to place a container and any other sort of camouflage?

 

Missed this somehow so late getting back to it.

 

I took it that LoneR was asking what people thought about walking up to a fence post and replacing the cap with a modified cap/container. The cap looks the same on the outside so was permission even needed? If this was the case, i stated no because it violated the gc.com permission guideline. I'd see no problem,, if permission to replace the property owner's fence cap was asked for and granted.

Link to comment

Quite a while ago we attempted an EarthCache with an interesting geological lesson. Well, attempt, as the area we needed to visit was a flooded quarry behind a huge 'no entrance, trespassing and everything else' sign from the quarry owner. We felt we could not do this cache and posted a DNF and a NA. Next thing, after the CO was contacted by a reviewer was that the CO changed the logging task to 'the third word on the warning sign outside the quarry'. Didn't help and the cache was archived, and we ot some nasty cache police comments. Oh well... So here, permission, and telling people to enter a place where entrance was clearly not appreciated was the problem.

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 have found a local cache that was hidden similar to that, but the utility pole was long ago abandoned prior to the property being acquired by the State as a conservation area. The road that it was on is no longer a road and the house that it led to is no longer there. The CO chose this pole specifically because of this, rather than using an active pole. In this case, I would call it a gray area, because yes, technically it is vandalism according to the guidelines, but nobody cares because it is an abandoned structure. The State probably doesn't even have a problem with it, because it is getting more people involved and interested in our natural resources.

 

I have also found another local cache where the CO removed a bolt from the State Highway guardrail, drilled it out to make a custom bolt cache, and then put it back in place, as one of his evil caches, in more ways than one. Evil because, when looking for a cache, one usually presumes that it is hidden within the geocaching guidelines, which this one was not, which makes it easy to overlook. And evil because a guardrail is an engineered safety device, which he first disassembled and then compromised one of the fasteners to create his cache. One could argue that there is enough redundancy in the guardrail that one bolt is not going to make a difference, but this is nonetheless a clear case of vandalism. I think the State might have a problem with this one.

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:

 

So following on the bird house post example, all fake sprinkler head caches are non-compliant, along with drain caches, anything attached to those plastic micro centrifuge tubes and virtually anything else that may be stuck into the ground.

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3570/3415986742_75e6f106f9.jpg

 

http://shop.spacecoastgeocachers.com/Bottle-cap-micro-geocache-container-1182-N.htm

 

http://www.crazycaches.com/geoconduit-cache/

 

All of these items require a hole to made in the ground and thus all are non-compliant. Does this sound like the original intent of the tenet "Geocaches are never buried"?

 

Or was the original intent to prohibit geocaches that are actually completely buried to obscure them, as what might typically be perceived when one hears the phrase 'treasure hunting'?

 

I would not consider the bird house geocache to be buried, along with any of the other examples that I gave. I have found a cache on occasion, where it is obvious that the CO dug a hole to place the cache. The most recent example being a full sized irrigation valve box that was in the COs front yard (horrible idea BTW, as everything is constantly wet). But you have to remember that Land Managers do not have to accept the geocaching guidelines wholesale and are completely free to add additional restrictions if they want to.

 

I have a cache placed in a county park with permission and actually had to meet the park ranger on site to review the cache and placement with her before it was approved.

 

All geocaches are placed with permission, right?... Any Land Manager that is on vacation that finds a questionably placed cache can only assume that the respective Land Owner/Manager has given permission for the cache to placed in that manner. If Land Manager perception is a big concern, then maybe more emphasis should be placed on the Land Manager's rights to further regulate caches on their land as they see fit.

Edited by cleandrysurface
Link to comment
So following on the bird house post example, all fake sprinkler head caches are non-compliant, along with drain caches, anything attached to those plastic micro centrifuge tubes and virtually anything else that may be stuck into the ground.[...]

 

All of these items require a hole to made in the ground and thus all are non-compliant.

I'm not convinced that these types of caches REQUIRE a hole to be made in the ground. I have found caches that complied with the no-digging guideline even though they incorporated fake sprinkler heads, drains, and/or above-grade camouflage attached to below-grade containers.

 

There are also examples of these types of caches that violate the no-digging guideline, but my point is that these types of caches do not necessarily violate the no-digging guideline.

 

Does this sound like the original intent of the tenet "Geocaches are never buried"?

 

Or was the original intent to prohibit geocaches that are actually completely buried to obscure them, as what might typically be perceived when one hears the phrase 'treasure hunting'?

As I read the no-digging guideline, it has nothing to do with covering or obscuring the cache container, otherwise the standard UPS hide would violate the guideline because the container is "buried" under an unnatural pile of sticks/stones.

 

As I read the no-digging guideline, it is about whether "one has to dig or create a hole in the ground". And from what I can see, that is how Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers interpret the guideline.

Link to comment

Can you spot what you can't do on this video?:

 

 

Ok, I'll take a shot at your little quiz.

 

First I see a number on a post. Was it pre-existing? Or did the CO use a magic marker? We don't really know. I have seen contractors write notes in pen, pencil or marker (nowhere near any cache) for their own reference.

 

Next, the hole that the cache is hidden in. Was it drilled? Was it created by removing a bolt? Or was it pre-drilled by the municipality for a bolt that was never installed? I have seen such spacers that turn because not all bolt holes were used.

 

Good practice when installing a cache where there are pre-existing conditions that look like a possible violation might be to notify the reviewer in notes that are hidden but remain for future reference, or state in the description that nothing was altered.

 

When I've modified things that might appear to break the rules, I've noted in the cache description that I brought all my supplies from home (e.g., a hollowed-out branch). It also happens to be much easier to work in the basement or garage rather than carrying tools to GZ.

Link to comment

Can you spot what you can't do on this video?:

 

 

Ok, I'll take a shot at your little quiz.

 

First I see a number on a post. Was it pre-existing? Or did the CO use a magic marker? We don't really know. I have seen contractors write notes in pen, pencil or marker (nowhere near any cache) for their own reference.

 

Next, the hole that the cache is hidden in. Was it drilled? Was it created by removing a bolt? Or was it pre-drilled by the municipality for a bolt that was never installed? I have seen such spacers that turn because not all bolt holes were used.

 

Good practice when installing a cache where there are pre-existing conditions that look like a possible violation might be to notify the reviewer in notes that are hidden but remain for future reference, or state in the description that nothing was altered.

 

When I've modified things that might appear to break the rules, I've noted in the cache description that I brought all my supplies from home (e.g., a hollowed-out branch). It also happens to be much easier to work in the basement or garage rather than carrying tools to GZ.

 

Yes. Magic marker used to write a clue on the guardrail spacer:

 

6897431f-4a96-40fc-b07f-e5936bb9103c.png

 

And a hole that looks suspiciously like it was drilled to fit their little container. Even if it by some coincidence happened to be there already, it looks like the cache owner drilled the hole, maybe even removed a bolt to allow the spacer to twist.

 

bb73b892-e251-4394-8d1e-bb0a15e3623f_l.png

 

 

Link to comment

LOOKS LIKE????

 

I see things cahcing all the time that look like something else. That does not mean they are a guideline violation.

 

Yeah...you know...isn't that the point of many hides...to LOOK LIKE something that it isn't? How many fake rock or false electrical coverplate caches have you found?

Link to comment

Here is a different kind of guideline breaker that I recently ran across - a vacation cache.

 

The cache had numerous log comments and 3 recent 'Needs Maintenance' logs stating that the log was wet and there were two containers on site. Nothing unusual about that and I would normally have not paid much mind to it except the CO included the following in the cache description:

 

"AS WITH ALL MY CACHES - IF THE LOG IS WET SIMPLY REPLACE IT - Its quicker and easier for you to replace it for me than to log a "maintanence" for just piece of paper - THANKS!"

 

Adding/replacing logs for other cachers is a common practice, so I found it odd that the CO would explicitly request this. Upon further review, I discovered that the CO lives out of state and owns an extraordinarily large number of caches, many of which contain a similar maintenance request in the cache description. I got the sense that the CO was relying on the maintenance provided by random visitors to his caches as integral part of his maintenance efforts.

 

I marked the cache 'Needs Archived', because even though the CO was active, it was apparent that the cache was not receiving adequate maintenance. Other cachers were periodically adding pieces of paper to provide a dry log but as most of us have come to find out, 1 wet log + 1 dry log = 2 wet logs, eventually.

 

Shortly thereafter, I received a lengthy email from the CO, lambasting me for calling him out on his inappropriate maintenance practices. He was of the opinion that it was completely acceptable to rely on others for the maintenance of his caches since that his how the "geocaching community" works. That the geocaching community looks out for each other's caches is one thing, and it is great that it does. Its another thing to rely on the goodwill of others as the primary source of maintenance for your caches and yet another thing to come to expect it by asking for it.

 

Cache ended up being disabled by local reviewer pending maintenance by the CO or their designated proxies.

 

Personally, if I start getting logs on my caches noting that a piece of paper was added to the log, I take that as an indicator that my cache is overdue for a maintenance visit.

Edited by cleandrysurface
Link to comment

If a cache is submitted to me for review from a CO who lives a long distance away, I read the cache description to spot statements like what was quoted in the above post. Distant caches require an adequate maintenance plan before I will publish them. An adequate maintenance plan could be, for example, "I travel through this town on business once each week, as shown by my 200 cache finds in this county" or "my parents live in this town and have agreed to look out for this cache."

 

Asking other geocachers to replace logsheets or containers is not a maintenance plan. It's not prohibited if it happens on its own, but that cannot replace the cache owner's responsibiliity. I am glad that the local reviewer for the territory where that cache was placed has disabled the listing.

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.

 

Kind of like this one that I found. Its actually a piece of a real tree branch that had been cut off, a hole drilled out in the end of it, a screw placed in the hole and then screwed back onto the tree. The bison tube fits in the hole of the fake cut off limb and if I remember correctly there was a piece of wood or something that covered the hole but it wasn't in place when we found it.

 

1ac1e1d9-5dd0-4b6c-9373-ebf306ac660f_zpsukuwl18n.jpg

Edited by Luckyone80
Link to comment

This one is a plastic box of sorts that is buried in the ground, the ammo box is inside. There is a green plastic lid that covers the container that is flush with the ground.

 

With permission, that hide is legal. It probably doesn't have permission,but there is nothing wrong with the hide per se.

 

In reality that hide is not legal. That is a utility access box. Either cable or power, you can see that the CO has placed rocks

on top of whatever is in that box. There was a box just like that in my yard where I used to live a few years ago.

Utility company was pissed when it looked like some kids opened it. Current Federal law unlawfull to access utility access boxes of any type.

I have even seen a sign to that effect by an access box.

Link to comment

This one is a plastic box of sorts that is buried in the ground, the ammo box is inside. There is a green plastic lid that covers the container that is flush with the ground.

 

With permission, that hide is legal. It probably doesn't have permission,but there is nothing wrong with the hide per se.

 

In reality that hide is not legal. That is a utility access box. Either cable or power, you can see that the CO has placed rocks

on top of whatever is in that box. There was a box just like that in my yard where I used to live a few years ago.

Utility company was pissed when it looked like some kids opened it. Current Federal law unlawfull to access utility access boxes of any type.

I have even seen a sign to that effect by an access box.

 

And it would have been sensible to overpaint the "Grenades" markings :huh::ph34r:

Link to comment

This one is a plastic box of sorts that is buried in the ground, the ammo box is inside. There is a green plastic lid that covers the container that is flush with the ground.

 

With permission, that hide is legal. It probably doesn't have permission,but there is nothing wrong with the hide per se.

 

In reality that hide is not legal. That is a utility access box. Either cable or power, you can see that the CO has placed rocks

on top of whatever is in that box. There was a box just like that in my yard where I used to live a few years ago.

Utility company was pissed when it looked like some kids opened it. Current Federal law unlawfull to access utility access boxes of any type.

I have even seen a sign to that effect by an access box.

I'm not so sure that these are always illegal. I've seen a few of these and the 'boxes' seem to have been installed for sprinkler systems, not utilities in the sense of water/power companies. The ones I found had notes in the cache description noting that they had permissions. I can think of 5 such hides that I've found and 4 of those were related to geotours.

 

If the caches were hidden in utility boxes (water/power) then I'm sure they probably are illegal, since it's doubtful the CO got explicit permission from the utility companies. I haven't found any in such hiding places.

Link to comment

Going back to the "nails in trees" posts: I'm not sure exactly which guideline this is breaking. There seems to be no suggestion that nails seriously damage mature trees (even copper ones).

 

However, in some parts of the world you might be breaking the law.

 

"Tree spiking" was declared a federal felony in the United States in 1988 (I think that a federal felony is one where you go to prison for a year or more). Possibly a small nail wouldn't be regarded as a tree spike, but I wouldn't like to risk it. The purpose of the law is to protect timber workers from potential injury. So, guidelines apart, I wouldn't advise using any substantial nail to support a geocache. Even if the nail is in place already I wouldn't want to be associated with it in any way.

Link to comment

This one is a plastic box of sorts that is buried in the ground, the ammo box is inside. There is a green plastic lid that covers the container that is flush with the ground.

 

With permission, that hide is legal. It probably doesn't have permission,but there is nothing wrong with the hide per se.

 

In reality that hide is not legal. That is a utility access box. Either cable or power, you can see that the CO has placed rocks

on top of whatever is in that box. There was a box just like that in my yard where I used to live a few years ago.

Utility company was pissed when it looked like some kids opened it. Current Federal law unlawfull to access utility access boxes of any type.

I have even seen a sign to that effect by an access box.

I'm not so sure that these are always illegal. I've seen a few of these and the 'boxes' seem to have been installed for sprinkler systems, not utilities in the sense of water/power companies. The ones I found had notes in the cache description noting that they had permissions. I can think of 5 such hides that I've found and 4 of those were related to geotours.

 

If the caches were hidden in utility boxes (water/power) then I'm sure they probably are illegal, since it's doubtful the CO got explicit permission from the utility companies. I haven't found any in such hiding places.

 

Utility company access box aside. Let's say for the sake of argument the cache owner purchased their own utility box (i.e. irrigation valve box) and placed it on their own property. Wouldn't this still be a violation of the guidelines because 'geocaches are never buried'? A hole would need to be dug to place the box.

Link to comment

This one is a plastic box of sorts that is buried in the ground, the ammo box is inside. There is a green plastic lid that covers the container that is flush with the ground.

 

With permission, that hide is legal. It probably doesn't have permission,but there is nothing wrong with the hide per se.

 

In reality that hide is not legal. That is a utility access box. Either cable or power, you can see that the CO has placed rocks

on top of whatever is in that box. There was a box just like that in my yard where I used to live a few years ago.

Utility company was pissed when it looked like some kids opened it. Current Federal law unlawfull to access utility access boxes of any type.

I have even seen a sign to that effect by an access box.

I'm not so sure that these are always illegal. I've seen a few of these and the 'boxes' seem to have been installed for sprinkler systems, not utilities in the sense of water/power companies. The ones I found had notes in the cache description noting that they had permissions. I can think of 5 such hides that I've found and 4 of those were related to geotours.

 

If the caches were hidden in utility boxes (water/power) then I'm sure they probably are illegal, since it's doubtful the CO got explicit permission from the utility companies. I haven't found any in such hiding places.

 

Utility company access box aside. Let's say for the sake of argument the cache owner purchased their own utility box (i.e. irrigation valve box) and placed it on their own property. Wouldn't this still be a violation of the guidelines because 'geocaches are never buried'? A hole would need to be dug to place the box.

 

That's an interesting question. We must have a reviewer or two lurking around this forum that could shed some light on this. I would consider "buried" something you have to dig up. If the top is easily accessible and doesn't require any digging to open than I'd say it's ok as long as you have permission from the land owner/manager to place the cache in the ground. I guess we need to know how Groundspeak defines "buried".

Link to comment

This one is a plastic box of sorts that is buried in the ground, the ammo box is inside. There is a green plastic lid that covers the container that is flush with the ground.

 

With permission, that hide is legal. It probably doesn't have permission,but there is nothing wrong with the hide per se.

 

In reality that hide is not legal. That is a utility access box. Either cable or power, you can see that the CO has placed rocks

on top of whatever is in that box. There was a box just like that in my yard where I used to live a few years ago.

Utility company was pissed when it looked like some kids opened it. Current Federal law unlawfull to access utility access boxes of any type.

I have even seen a sign to that effect by an access box.

I'm not so sure that these are always illegal. I've seen a few of these and the 'boxes' seem to have been installed for sprinkler systems, not utilities in the sense of water/power companies. The ones I found had notes in the cache description noting that they had permissions. I can think of 5 such hides that I've found and 4 of those were related to geotours.

 

If the caches were hidden in utility boxes (water/power) then I'm sure they probably are illegal, since it's doubtful the CO got explicit permission from the utility companies. I haven't found any in such hiding places.

 

Utility company access box aside. Let's say for the sake of argument the cache owner purchased their own utility box (i.e. irrigation valve box) and placed it on their own property. Wouldn't this still be a violation of the guidelines because 'geocaches are never buried'? A hole would need to be dug to place the box.

 

That's an interesting question. We must have a reviewer or two lurking around this forum that could shed some light on this. I would consider "buried" something you have to dig up. If the top is easily accessible and doesn't require any digging to open than I'd say it's ok as long as you have permission from the land owner/manager to place the cache in the ground. I guess we need to know how Groundspeak defines "buried".

 

From the guidelines:

 

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.

I don't think it matters whether it's your property or if permission is given.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

 

From the guidelines:

 

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.

I don't think it matters whether it's your property or if permission is given.

 

I think it's time to use common sense :ph34r:

 

OK for the landowner + OK for the CO = OK. No need for global guidelines where US situations are ground for guidelines (not even rules) wordwide.

Link to comment

We must have a reviewer or two lurking around this forum that could shed some light on this. I would consider "buried" something you have to dig up. If the top is easily accessible and doesn't require any digging to open than I'd say it's ok as long as you have permission from the land owner/manager to place the cache in the ground. I guess we need to know how Groundspeak defines "buried".

I've posted several times in this thread to provide official answers.

 

"Buried" applies both to the placement and the retrieval of the cache. Mudfrog accurately quoted the guideline, which has worldwide applicability. There is no U.S. Federal Statute about digging holes that is any different than the considerations around digging holes in other countries.

 

Re: an exception when you are the landowner or where the landowner gives permission -- be prepared to jump through more hoops than a dog act at the circus.

Link to comment

This one is a plastic box of sorts that is buried in the ground, the ammo box is inside. There is a green plastic lid that covers the container that is flush with the ground.

 

With permission, that hide is legal. It probably doesn't have permission,but there is nothing wrong with the hide per se.

 

In reality that hide is not legal. That is a utility access box. Either cable or power, you can see that the CO has placed rocks

on top of whatever is in that box. There was a box just like that in my yard where I used to live a few years ago.

Utility company was pissed when it looked like some kids opened it. Current Federal law unlawfull to access utility access boxes of any type.

I have even seen a sign to that effect by an access box.

I'm not so sure that these are always illegal. I've seen a few of these and the 'boxes' seem to have been installed for sprinkler systems, not utilities in the sense of water/power companies. The ones I found had notes in the cache description noting that they had permissions. I can think of 5 such hides that I've found and 4 of those were related to geotours.

 

If the caches were hidden in utility boxes (water/power) then I'm sure they probably are illegal, since it's doubtful the CO got explicit permission from the utility companies. I haven't found any in such hiding places.

 

Utility company access box aside. Let's say for the sake of argument the cache owner purchased their own utility box (i.e. irrigation valve box) and placed it on their own property. Wouldn't this still be a violation of the guidelines because 'geocaches are never buried'? A hole would need to be dug to place the box.

 

That's an interesting question. We must have a reviewer or two lurking around this forum that could shed some light on this. I would consider "buried" something you have to dig up. If the top is easily accessible and doesn't require any digging to open than I'd say it's ok as long as you have permission from the land owner/manager to place the cache in the ground. I guess we need to know how Groundspeak defines "buried".

 

That's been a problem with "no buried caches" all along. Every time GS changes the language in the guideline someone comes along with a new semantic interpretation which they try to use to justify placing a cache that complies with the guideline. We've seen "no digging", "no pointy objects", "no disturbing the earth", and various other phrases used.

 

If you consider "buried" to be something you have to dig up, someone is going to create a hole in the ground (perhaps using a leaf blower, dropping a bowling ball from a helicopter, or using dynamite....that's not "digging" a hole, right?) big enough for someone just reach in and pull out the container and claim that it's okay because it didn't require digging.

 

Bottom line. A land manager doesn't care how Groundspeak defines "buried". They just want an assurance that if they're going to allow geocaching on the property they manage, they're not going to find holes in the ground created by players of the game.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Utility company access box aside. Let's say for the sake of argument the cache owner purchased their own utility box (i.e. irrigation valve box) and placed it on their own property. Wouldn't this still be a violation of the guidelines because 'geocaches are never buried'? A hole would need to be dug to place the box.
Sure, a hole was dug to place the utility box. But no digging was required to place the cache in that utility box, and no digging was required to find/retrieve the cache that was placed in that utility box.

 

I've found a number of "below grade" caches that were hidden without digging in any way, and that could be found without digging in any way.

Link to comment
Utility company access box aside. Let's say for the sake of argument the cache owner purchased their own utility box (i.e. irrigation valve box) and placed it on their own property. Wouldn't this still be a violation of the guidelines because 'geocaches are never buried'? A hole would need to be dug to place the box.
Sure, a hole was dug to place the utility box. But no digging was required to place the cache in that utility box, and no digging was required to find/retrieve the cache that was placed in that utility box.

 

I've found a number of "below grade" caches that were hidden without digging in any way, and that could be found without digging in any way.

 

What about if the person purchased their own irrigation valve box and dug a hole in a public park to fit the valve box and then placed an ammo can in the valve box? Because they saw where someone had done that on their own property and thought it was a good idea.

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.

 

Or you can use screws, which don't harm the tree in any way shape or form!

Link to comment
Or you can use screws, which don't harm the tree in any way shape or form!
It isn't about whether the screws "harm the tree". In most cases, they don't harm the tree.

 

It's about the guidelines against defacement of public or private property.

 

A nail, screw, hook or bolt in a live tree violates the defacement guideline. It may also violate a land management policy, state law or local ordinance. All local laws apply, but reviewers tend to cite to the defacement guideline as it applies in all cases.

 

And FWIW, this thread is about showing how caches that violate the guidelines can be redesigned so that they comply with the guidelines.

Edited by niraD
Link to comment

Some off topic posts have been hidden from view. As a reminder, there's a separate thread in which to comment on cache examples posted here. This thread is for understanding the listing guideline issues, and suggesting ways in which the cache hiding method might be modified in order to meet the listing guidelines.

Link to comment

I've got two more scenarios to discuss. Again, the purpose is to explore the edges of the guidelines.

 

The picture is just for reference because it shows conduit connected to something (in this case, a pole) using unistrut, and make help people understand what I am talking about. Ignore the telecommunications hut in the background. I am unaware of any geocache at this location. However, I am aware that caches have placed using the technique outlined below.

 

Google-Fiber-San-Jose-Fiber-Hut-02.jpg

 

What if someone added a geocache hidden in a piece of conduit? They clamped the conduit to existing unistrut, and made it look similar to the others. With unistrut, you do not have to drill any holes, or alter in any manner any of the existing structure. They did not bury the end of the conduit in the ground, just seated it real well. In your opinion, would such a cache meet the guidelines? If yes, should it continue to meet the guidelines, and if no, why doesn't it meet the guidelines? My opinion is that by itself, this does not violate the guidelines, because no damage is done. However, if the unistrut is attached to a power or telecommunications pole, good luck getting the owners permission. In the US, you would need a pole lease agreement. And, if we don't ignore the telecommunications hut, I would say the area in the picture above would be an inappropriate location. Lot's of possible nuance on this one.

 

Speaking of defacing, here is one scenario that I happened upon. It was a simple electrical cover plate cache, appropriately painted to match the distribution panel it was magnetically attached to. The panel the cache was attached to was huge, the side the cache was attached to was at least 3' x 8'. The panel was attached to a building, and the cache was placed on the panel, near the building. When I found the cache, it was pretty obvious where it was. Previous finders had slid the cover plate to the edge of the panel because the CO used a lot of really strong magnets. This was an outdoor cache, and the panel had fine dirt and dust on it. Getting the cache off the panel left lots of scratch marks. In this case, the placement of the cache did not initially alter or deface anything, but the finding of the cache did cause cosmetic damage. Again, the same set of questions. In your opinion, does this violate the guidelines or not? In my opinion, this cache would be OK if it was placed where sliding it off the panel wouldn't cause the inevitable scratching.

 

Thanks, Skye.

Link to comment

I've got two more scenarios to discuss. Again, the purpose is to explore the edges of the guidelines.

 

The picture is just for reference because it shows conduit connected to something (in this case, a pole) using unistrut, and make help people understand what I am talking about. Ignore the telecommunications hut in the background. I am unaware of any geocache at this location. However, I am aware that caches have placed using the technique outlined below.

 

Google-Fiber-San-Jose-Fiber-Hut-02.jpg

 

What if someone added a geocache hidden in a piece of conduit? They clamped the conduit to existing unistrut, and made it look similar to the others. With unistrut, you do not have to drill any holes, or alter in any manner any of the existing structure. They did not bury the end of the conduit in the ground, just seated it real well. In your opinion, would such a cache meet the guidelines? If yes, should it continue to meet the guidelines, and if no, why doesn't it meet the guidelines? My opinion is that by itself, this does not violate the guidelines, because no damage is done. However, if the unistrut is attached to a power or telecommunications pole, good luck getting the owners permission. In the US, you would need a pole lease agreement. And, if we don't ignore the telecommunications hut, I would say the area in the picture above would be an inappropriate location. Lot's of possible nuance on this one.

 

Speaking of defacing, here is one scenario that I happened upon. It was a simple electrical cover plate cache, appropriately painted to match the distribution panel it was magnetically attached to. The panel the cache was attached to was huge, the side the cache was attached to was at least 3' x 8'. The panel was attached to a building, and the cache was placed on the panel, near the building. When I found the cache, it was pretty obvious where it was. Previous finders had slid the cover plate to the edge of the panel because the CO used a lot of really strong magnets. This was an outdoor cache, and the panel had fine dirt and dust on it. Getting the cache off the panel left lots of scratch marks. In this case, the placement of the cache did not initially alter or deface anything, but the finding of the cache did cause cosmetic damage. Again, the same set of questions. In your opinion, does this violate the guidelines or not? In my opinion, this cache would be OK if it was placed where sliding it off the panel wouldn't cause the inevitable scratching.

 

Thanks, Skye.

 

I would think both scenarios would be meet guidelines as long as permission was obtained. Of course we all know it's a pretty sure bet that it most likely wasn't. A reviewer could question this but since the "i have read the listing guidelines" box was checked, he/she would probably be obligated to publish the cache anyway.

Link to comment

I've got two more scenarios to discuss. Again, the purpose is to explore the edges of the guidelines.

 

The picture is just for reference because it shows conduit connected to something (in this case, a pole) using unistrut, and make help people understand what I am talking about. Ignore the telecommunications hut in the background. I am unaware of any geocache at this location. However, I am aware that caches have placed using the technique outlined below.

 

Google-Fiber-San-Jose-Fiber-Hut-02.jpg

 

What if someone added a geocache hidden in a piece of conduit? They clamped the conduit to existing unistrut, and made it look similar to the others. With unistrut, you do not have to drill any holes, or alter in any manner any of the existing structure. They did not bury the end of the conduit in the ground, just seated it real well. In your opinion, would such a cache meet the guidelines? If yes, should it continue to meet the guidelines, and if no, why doesn't it meet the guidelines? My opinion is that by itself, this does not violate the guidelines, because no damage is done. However, if the unistrut is attached to a power or telecommunications pole, good luck getting the owners permission. In the US, you would need a pole lease agreement. And, if we don't ignore the telecommunications hut, I would say the area in the picture above would be an inappropriate location. Lot's of possible nuance on this one.

 

Speaking of defacing, here is one scenario that I happened upon. It was a simple electrical cover plate cache, appropriately painted to match the distribution panel it was magnetically attached to. The panel the cache was attached to was huge, the side the cache was attached to was at least 3' x 8'. The panel was attached to a building, and the cache was placed on the panel, near the building. When I found the cache, it was pretty obvious where it was. Previous finders had slid the cover plate to the edge of the panel because the CO used a lot of really strong magnets. This was an outdoor cache, and the panel had fine dirt and dust on it. Getting the cache off the panel left lots of scratch marks. In this case, the placement of the cache did not initially alter or deface anything, but the finding of the cache did cause cosmetic damage. Again, the same set of questions. In your opinion, does this violate the guidelines or not? In my opinion, this cache would be OK if it was placed where sliding it off the panel wouldn't cause the inevitable scratching.

 

Thanks, Skye.

 

In both cases, the placement may not have damaged or defaced an existing structure but it *did* alter what was there before the cache was placed. As Mudfrog suggested, it's likely more of a permission issue than an "damage, alter, or deface" issue. The electrical plate, to me, is close if not over the line into something that violates the guidelines. It's not *that* much different than just slapping a hide-a-key on the back side of the electrical equipment or sticking a fake bolt on a guard rail or some other metal structure. In examples like these I try to look at it from a land managers perspective. Even if permission was obtained to clamp on a piece of conduit to an existing structure, what is the maintenance worker going to think when they encounter something like that when they're doing work on the equipment? The thing about obtaining explicit permission is that the fact that permission was obtain is often not communicated to everyone that might encounter the cache or witness someone trying to find it. A LEO that observes someone poking around electrical equipment most likely wouldn't know that permission was given and placing a cache there could result in an uncomfortable conversation between a finder and someone with a badge.

 

 

Link to comment

So I have a question... The rule here is to not "harm" natural or manmade environment. You can't harm a piece of deadwood in the forest by putting a screw in it, but I've been told by a reviewer that putting a screw into an old dead stump is defacing the environment. However, I can take a piece of deadwood, split it open, chisel it out for a cache, use a couple dozen screws building hinges and securing the container and then deposit it all in the woods and that's perfectly okay. So if I understand correctly, one screw in a piece of deadwood that's vertical is not okay, but two dozen screws in a piece of deadwood that's horizontal is just fine. Am I missing something?

 

edit to add question: Is it possible to "harm" a piece of wood that is dead? What about all these drilled out rocks? Is that "harm"? Who defines harm for us?

Edited by fox-and-the-hound
Link to comment

So I have a question... The rule here is to not "harm" natural or manmade environment. You can't harm a piece of deadwood in the forest by putting a screw in it, but I've been told by a reviewer that putting a screw into an old dead stump is defacing the environment. However, I can take a piece of deadwood, split it open, chisel it out for a cache, use a couple dozen screws building hinges and securing the container and then deposit it all in the woods and that's perfectly okay. So if I understand correctly, one screw in a piece of deadwood that's vertical is not okay, but two dozen screws in a piece of deadwood that's horizontal is just fine. Am I missing something?

 

edit to add question: Is it possible to "harm" a piece of wood that is dead? What about all these drilled out rocks? Is that "harm"? Who defines harm for us?

I don't believe vertical/horizontal is the issue.

Maybe it just depends on whether it's "deadwood" from the cache area, or something you made at home, and dropped off, keeping the local flora and biota kinda free of outside harm

We had "log" hides in a series published, so that may be all it is.

I had a cache that was hidden by a big, (flat-spray painted) black rock.

Got numerous emails on "defacing the area", when in fact I backpacked that heavy rock in from the rock wall on my property.

Lugged it back out when archived too. :)

Link to comment

Personally, I think the introduction of wood from one are to another is a far worse scenario. If you want cause stress on an environment, then introducing foreign elements with unknown contaminates is a sure way to do so. Again, it's the vague nature of the term "harm" that is at issue I think. Nail in a tree... stupid and harmful. Screw in a piece of deadfall... I don't see the problem. How is a 1/4 gram of metal jammed in a piece of rotting deadwood a harm to the environment when a couple pounds of ammocan jammed in the hollow of a live tree, just fine?

Link to comment

Again, it's the vague nature of the term "harm" that is at issue I think. Nail in a tree... stupid and harmful. Screw in a piece of deadfall... I don't see the problem. How is a 1/4 gram of metal jammed in a piece of rotting deadwood a harm to the environment when a couple pounds of ammocan jammed in the hollow of a live tree, just fine?

 

It's about the appearance of defacement or causing harm. And it's also about the piling on effect. One person screws into a dead tree, then another person drills just a tiny hole into a live tree for a bison tube. Not really any harm. But next thing you know someone's drilling and carving out a hole big enough for an ammo box and covering that hole with a cute gnome door that's held on with 6 screws; or attaching a garden reel to a tree and doing it right in the middle of a public park. Give a cacher an envelope and they will push it.

Link to comment

Some people have to much imagination :ph34r:

More damage is done by the constant stream of cachers than by fixing something to a tree or digging a hole. I've seen birdhouses (real ones, even made for large birds like owls) fixed with screws to trees. Not done by cachers though but by the park officials and nature societies responsible for fauna and flora. I guess those are the people that know what they are doing, right?

Link to comment

Some people have to much imagination :ph34r:

More damage is done by the constant stream of cachers than by fixing something to a tree or digging a hole. I've seen birdhouses (real ones, even made for large birds like owls) fixed with screws to trees. Not done by cachers though but by the park officials and nature societies responsible for fauna and flora. I guess those are the people that know what they are doing, right?

True, we have birdhouses on our own property that's attached to trees with tinber screws, similar to a landowner where a couple of our hides are located.

They don't think screws in trees is an issue, but we wouldn't think of attempting similar there.

Our large rural mailbox high in a tree on that same property had to have a promise to adjust the tension on its holder at least once a year to prevent girdling.

Nails and screws aren't an issue, yet girdling is.

- And that may be different in twenty other park systems.

I can see why Groundspeak decided to cut the risk a bit on a few things that may be percieved as detrimental to any given area. :)

Link to comment

Again, it's the vague nature of the term "harm" that is at issue I think. Nail in a tree... stupid and harmful. Screw in a piece of deadfall... I don't see the problem. How is a 1/4 gram of metal jammed in a piece of rotting deadwood a harm to the environment when a couple pounds of ammocan jammed in the hollow of a live tree, just fine?

 

It's about the appearance of defacement or causing harm. And it's also about the piling on effect. One person screws into a dead tree, then another person drills just a tiny hole into a live tree for a bison tube. Not really any harm. But next thing you know someone's drilling and carving out a hole big enough for an ammo box and covering that hole with a cute gnome door that's held on with 6 screws; or attaching a garden reel to a tree and doing it right in the middle of a public park. Give a cacher an envelope and they will push it.

 

I have to disagree. That's akin to saying because one person has a an alcohol beverage it will result in someone else going DUI. One has person being responsible has nothing to do with the other behaving badly. We're talking about deadfall and rotting stumps vs. healthy trees and the total impact on the environment by what we put out there. 1 nail vs. dozens of nails. Both in dead wood. The one with greater impact is allowed. This doesn't make sense. Reviewers are supposed to make judgement calls to keep the impact at a minimum. I don't see that happening in these 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...