You Can't Do That

[+Wheely Clever]

Hi all,

 

I have been reading the items in this forum, and have found it fascinating. I was about to post my first cache, using copy of a cache I saw in a You Tube video (

), involving drilling a hole in the kerbside and inserting a hollow bolt with the log inside. I can see now that this would automatically break the rules, and it has really meant that I need to think much more deeply about how to place a good cache. I have found your comments interesting reading, and wondered what your views were on attaching nails to walls, wooden structures (that are not living trees, and other inanimate objects). Whilst not affecting the environment, I am assuming this would come under the 'defacement' regulations - but I welcome your views. Likewise, if a hole already exists, I assume this is okay?

[+cerberus1]

Is it your property?

We shouldn't nail, drill, paint, etc... to anything not ours.

[+cerberus1]

I was about to post my first cache, using copy of a cache I saw in a You Tube video, involving drilling a hole in the kerbside and inserting a hollow bolt with the log inside. I can see now that this would automatically break the rules

You thought because of a video it was okay to drill a hole into a public curb?

Took a thread here to realize it wasn't proper?

You get caught drilling holes in the curbside, you'll probably have to explain your actions to the local court system.

[+hzoi]

I . . . wondered what your views were on attaching nails to walls, wooden structures (that are not living trees, and other inanimate objects). Whilst not affecting the environment, I am assuming this would come under the 'defacement' regulations - but I welcome your views. Likewise, if a hole already exists, I assume this is okay?

Adding a new nail to a wall or other wooden structure would appear to violate the guideline against defacement. If you used an existing nail, you should be OK, though other cachers may be under the impression that you out the nail there. Adding your own nail to an existing hole sans hammer falls in between; I could argue it either way. Best bet would be to run it by your local reviewer, as they will be the ones to approve your cache (or not) and respond to complaints from other geocachers (if any).

[Keystone]

Hi all,

 

I have been reading the items in this forum, and have found it fascinating. I was about to post my first cache, using copy of a cache I saw in a You Tube video (

), involving drilling a hole in the kerbside and inserting a hollow bolt with the log inside. I can see now that this would automatically break the rules, and it has really meant that I need to think much more deeply about how to place a good cache. I have found your comments interesting reading, and wondered what your views were on attaching nails to walls, wooden structures (that are not living trees, and other inanimate objects). Whilst not affecting the environment, I am assuming this would come under the 'defacement' regulations - but I welcome your views. Likewise, if a hole already exists, I assume this is okay?

Thanks for reading and learning from this thread!

 

Here is a good rule of thumb that I use as a Community Volunteer Reviewer when discussing questionable placements with cache owners:

 

"When you archive your cache years from now, and you remove the container, would there be any sign/evidence that the cache was ever there?" If the answer is "yes" then there is a possible issue from the nail, hole, paint, etc. used in the cache placement. Permission from the land manager can overcome some of these issues.

[+colleda]

Hi all,

 

I have been reading the items in this forum, and have found it fascinating. I was about to post my first cache, using copy of a cache I saw in a You Tube video (

), involving drilling a hole in the kerbside and inserting a hollow bolt with the log inside. I can see now that this would automatically break the rules, and it has really meant that I need to think much more deeply about how to place a good cache. I have found your comments interesting reading, and wondered what your views were on attaching nails to walls, wooden structures (that are not living trees, and other inanimate objects). Whilst not affecting the environment, I am assuming this would come under the 'defacement' regulations - but I welcome your views. Likewise, if a hole already exists, I assume this is okay?

Thanks for reading and learning from this thread!

 

Here is a good rule of thumb that I use as a Community Volunteer Reviewer when discussing questionable placements with cache owners:

 

"When you archive your cache years from now, and you remove the container, would there be any sign/evidence that the cache was ever there?" If the answer is "yes" then there is a possible issue from the nail, hole, paint, etc. used in the cache placement. Permission from the land manager can overcome some of these issues.

Edited May 4, 2016 by colleda

[+colleda]

We came across a cache today that was hidden in what appeared to be a hole drilled into a power pole. There is no way that we know that that the hole wasn't alrerady there, but it looked fresh. Yet, about two or three feet from the pole, was a disused bollard hole in the sidewalk with a steel cover plate about 4" across. Would make a perfect hide for a magnetic under the plate.

[+lee737]

We came across a cache today that was hidden in what appeared to be a hole drilled into a power pole.

 

I know where I'm looking next time!

 

 

[+colleda]

We came across a cache today that was hidden in what appeared to be a hole drilled into a power pole.

 

I know where I'm looking next time!

I noticed your DNF. hee hee.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Another bird house, screwed to a tree near a parking lot.

 

Meanwhile, "Nice container" logs abound. Took 29 "Found It" logs to get a NA log, and it was unceremoniously Archived moments later.

[+mesillywoohoo]

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

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

 

 

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

 

Is it a guideline breaker?

 

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

 

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

 

Unless the family of the gravesite have put it there it's SUPER disrespectful.

 

A few years ago I realized that people were suddenly tearing up my daughter's gravesite decorations. Her flowered were being rifled through and someone had DUG by her grave and crushed some of her statues. I was suspicious and did a search. Someone had hid a cache at MY child's gravesite. Well this is my family's graveyard and I posted a new rule 'NO GEOCACHING IN THE CEMETERY' people were being so distructive

[+krisandmel]

 

Another bird house, screwed to a tree near a parking lot.

 

Meanwhile, "Nice container" logs abound. Took 29 "Found It" logs to get a NA log, and it was unceremoniously Archived moments later.

 

Birdhouse-caches can be very cool, but yes, screwing it to a tree is a definite no-no. I have one, but I used several lengths of 550 paracord to lash it to the tree, and I also picked a dead tree so that I don't have to be concerned about bark damage over time.

 

The question I have, is if in another scenario there was a dead tree on private property could you (with the landowner's permission) screw/bolt a container to said dead tree? Would that pass muster with GS guidelines?

[+cerberus1]

The question I have, is if in another scenario there was a dead tree on private property could you (with the landowner's permission) screw/bolt a container to said dead tree? Would that pass muster with GS guidelines?

Scenarios and what-ifs... I believe that's one of those "talk to your Reviewer" things.

There could be a dozen dead tree caches, landowner permissions, and screws/nails/bolts or cap screws involved - and each might have a different answer.

 

A thread just a short while ago had a CO who wanted to screw a cache into a dead stump, and wasn't allowed.

Also possible that all the screwed/nailed, etc caches in live/dead trees we've seen never really had landowner permission, or the CO never discussed a truthful attachment method to the Reviewer.

[+krisandmel]

Cerberus, thank you, and you're probably correct about the caches that have been placed without full disclosure as to how or whether they violate the guidelines.

 

It's interesting to me that a description/statement on what the container is and how it is hidden is NOT part of the submission review process.

 

Sure, liars will lie, but I think many of the ill-placed caches are a result of ignorance rather than deception.

 

And, many people never read through the guidelines FULLY and just check those two boxes they have to check to get a listing to go.

 

Reviewers want the game to be successful and in many cases they may have a suggestion on placement that the CO didn't think about, if there is good communication, resulting in a better cache.

That's been my experience,

[+NanCycle]

Cerberus, thank you, and you're probably correct about the caches that have been placed without full disclosure as to how or whether they violate the guidelines.

 

It's interesting to me that a description/statement on what the container is and how it is hidden is NOT part of the submission review process.

 

Sure, liars will lie, but I think many of the ill-placed caches are a result of ignorance rather than deception.

And, many people never read through the guidelines FULLY and just check those two boxes they have to check to get a listing to go.

 

Reviewers want the game to be successful and in many cases they may have a suggestion on placement that the CO didn't think about, if there is good communication, resulting in a better cache.

That's been my experience,

 

And for every cache that was placed in violation of the guidelines (buried, screwed into a tree, etc - even if it did have explicit permission or was on the CO's own property) there will be some finders who will say "What a cool cache, I'm going to hide one like that" and do it without permission, on property that is not their own, thinking that it is good, because of the other cache. This is why I think that every such cache should be reported promptly.

[+on4bam]

This is why I think that every such cache should be reported promptly.

 

I guess you could start with most if not all LPC's. How many of those do you think have explicit permission?

[+dprovan]

It's interesting to me that a description/statement on what the container is and how it is hidden is NOT part of the submission review process.

I don't know exactly what the guidelines say, but I consider a description of the container and the hide to be part of the process, and I always cover those things in the reviewer note for exactly the reasons you've listed. I consider it my job to give the reviewer a chance to spot problems and make suggestions, so I'm not worried about whether the guidelines specifically demands that.

[+OReviewer]

It's interesting to me that a description/statement on what the container is and how it is hidden is NOT part of the submission review process.

 

I would disagree with this. The last page of the cache submission form says:

 

Reviewer Notes

 

You're almost done! Use this space to describe your geocache location, container, and how it's hidden to your reviewer. The more they know, the easier it is for them to publish your geocache. This note will not be visible to the public when your geocache is published.

[+cerberus1]

It's interesting to me that a description/statement on what the container is and how it is hidden is NOT part of the submission review process.

 

I would disagree with this. The last page of the cache submission form says:

 

Reviewer Notes

 

You're almost done! Use this space to describe your geocache location, container, and how it's hidden to your reviewer. The more they know, the easier it is for them to publish your geocache. This note will not be visible to the public when your geocache is published.

Thanks!

Was gonna respond... and you beat me to it.

[+krisandmel]

In my experience, which, granted is only 18 hides, I've only been asked specifically about the container/hide twice.

 

I think it's a good idea to "talk" to the reviewer of your specific plans, but at this point it doesn't seem mandatory or enforced. I also only have experience with three reviewers, so I have no idea what the practice is outside of my immediate region.

[+cerberus1]

In my experience, which, granted is only 18 hides, I've only been asked specifically about the container/hide twice.

 

I think it's a good idea to "talk" to the reviewer of your specific plans, but at this point it doesn't seem mandatory or enforced. I also only have experience with three reviewers, so I have no idea what the practice is outside of my immediate region.

I'm kinda surprised about that.

Never seen it, but I know Reviewers have their own forums to discuss issues, and I'd think they'd want to all be on the same page.

But you may be right, and it is a regional thing.

 

My Reviewer was given the location, container, how it's hidden, and who gave us permission, on every cache we placed, as it was asked of us in the submission form.

[SicilianCyclops]

 

Another bird house, screwed to a tree near a parking lot.

 

Meanwhile, "Nice container" logs abound. Took 29 "Found It" logs to get a NA log, and it was unceremoniously Archived moments later.

 

I apologize if this has been covered here before. But what if an actual BIRD takes up residence in a birdhouse cache? Then people would be messing with wildlife which isn't cool.

[+on4bam]

I apologize if this has been covered here before. But what if an actual BIRD takes up residence in a birdhouse cache? Then people would be messing with wildlife which isn't cool.

 

Any CO with half a brain would cover up the hole of a birdhouse. At least all the birdhouses I've seen were made so birds could not get in.

[SicilianCyclops]

I apologize if this has been covered here before. But what if an actual BIRD takes up residence in a birdhouse cache? Then people would be messing with wildlife which isn't cool.

 

Any CO with half a brain would cover up the hole of a birdhouse. At least all the birdhouses I've seen were made so birds could not get in.

 

You would think. But in that picture the hole is not covered up.

[+colleda]

Found a buried cache today and posted a NA. Asbestos suit on standby.

[+on4bam]

Found a buried cache today and posted a NA. Asbestos suit on standby.

 

No, you didn't.

[+colleda]

Found a buried cache today and posted a NA. Asbestos suit on standby.

 

No, you didn't.

 

Oh yes I did. The CO just deleted it.

[+on4bam]

Found a buried cache today and posted a NA. Asbestos suit on standby.

 

No, you didn't.

 

Oh yes I did. The CO just deleted it.

 

Seeing the favorites the cache has, maybe rightfully so.

BTW, if you feel so strong about the guidelines why log a find on an "illegal" cache?

[+Isonzo Karst]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines. And then my admin account disables them, pending a fix.

 

Sometimes (rarely) straight to archive; happens when the archived logs show a direct lie by CO. (admin, is it buried? CO, no it's blah blah blah. me find, buried).

 

I've never found an "illegal" cache - to me that means violating a law, something you could be jailed or ticketed for.

 

I've seen caches that were very much on the wrong side of No Trespassing signs. I don't find these. I disable them under my admin account. If traveling, I either post an NA, or email a local reviewer directly.

 

It is amusing how often people will find a cache on the wrong side of a No Trespassing sign, then log an NA on it, because they were "forced" to trespass and don't want others to be similarly "forced" ;-)

 

Sometimes they've simply made a wrong approach. I'm mindful of this, as an early cache of mine got an NA by someone who drove as close as they could (about 300m), and found themselves looking at a heavily posted residential lot. The correct approach was on the hiking trail, as mentioned in the listing, a hike of about a mile. Cache absolutely fine, in park, land manager good with it.

 

(sometimes a cache can become buried as soil shifts, or appear to have been buried, when it used an existing hole or depression, and soil/sand piles up around it over time. I've had this happen to my own caches, and seen it with other hides)

(also, Favorite points are irrelevant).

Edited June 21, 2016 by Isonzo Karst

[Pup Patrol]

Found a buried cache today and posted a NA. Asbestos suit on standby.

 

No, you didn't.

 

Oh yes I did. The CO just deleted it.

 

It's funny that CO's don't understand that deleting an NA log is futile.

 

NA logs go to the Reviewer and deleting them from the cache page is a waste of time. I think that CO's that delete NA logs (and NM logs) are being dishonest and should be put on a "watch list" for Reviewers.

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.12. Log Deletion

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=204

 

7. Needs Archived logs are forwarded to reviewers. Deleting the log does not affect this.

 

B.

[+on4bam]

I've never found an "illegal" cache - to me that means violating a law, something you could be jailed or ticketed for.

 

Hence, my use of "".

If someone feels a cache violates guidelines and wants it archived it's only logical not to go forward in retrieving the log and find it. Go the whole mile and just log a NA.

[+TriciaG]

If someone feels a cache violates guidelines and wants it archived it's only logical not to go forward in retrieving the log and find it.

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Often the only way to definitely tell a cache is violating guidelines is to find it. Once you've found it, you found it.

[+Mudfrog]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines

 

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

 

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't feel right logging a find on a cache but then logging a NA because i believed the cache ran afoul of GC.com guidelines. It's good enough to log, kinda like i'm condoning it, but at the same time, it's not good enough to stay published on the website.

[+cerberus1]

Often the only way to definitely tell a cache is violating guidelines is to find it. Once you've found it, you found it.

Yep.

I'd like folks to realize that I was there, not just logging it from afar, as we sometimes see today.

Tough to say there's no issue if I produce a pic too.

[+L0ne.R]

Found a buried cache today and posted a NA. Asbestos suit on standby.

 

No, you didn't.

 

Oh yes I did. The CO just deleted it.

 

Seeing the favorites the cache has, maybe rightfully so.

BTW, if you feel so strong about the guidelines why log a find on an "illegal" cache?

 

I've seen a lot of favourites on guideline infractions. The reel screwed into a tree with at least 10 screws had about an 80% favourite percentage. People love caches that break the guideline. Probably because they are unique. They are unique because most people don't tarnish this pastime by defacing property (or giving the appearance of defacing or damaging things for fun).

 

Regarding logging a find on a cache with a high FP count but violates the defacement/damage guideline, I think you see logging a find as a reward as opposed to a tool.

Logging a find is a tool that indicates you found a particular cache. It lets others (including the cache owner) know you saw the cache and the cache is there. Logging the find allows you to filter out the cache when searching for more caches to find.

It says you saw the infraction, so when you post the NA (or inform the reviewer without posting an NA), that you saw with your own eyes the screws, the no trespassing sign, the hole drilled into the utility pole, the hole dug out in the cemetery to fit a box, etc.

Edited June 21, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+on4bam]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines

 

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

 

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't feel right logging a find on a cache but then logging a NA because i believed the cache ran afoul of GC.com guidelines. It's good enough to log, kinda like i'm condoning it, but at the same time, it's not good enough to stay published on the website.

 

Exactly. But just as people really, really, really want that archived cache removed they will only do so if the listing is unlocked and they get the smiley for it.

[+L0ne.R]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines

 

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

 

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't feel right logging a find on a cache but then logging a NA because i believed the cache ran afoul of GC.com guidelines. It's good enough to log, kinda like i'm condoning it, but at the same time, it's not good enough to stay published on the website.

 

Exactly. But just as people really, really, really want that archived cache removed they will only do so if the listing is unlocked and they get the smiley for it.

 

Huh?

[+narcissa]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines

 

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

 

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't feel right logging a find on a cache but then logging a NA because i believed the cache ran afoul of GC.com guidelines. It's good enough to log, kinda like i'm condoning it, but at the same time, it's not good enough to stay published on the website.

 

This doesn't make any sense. If you've found a cache, you've found it. The find log is a record of that.

 

Reporting on the condition of the cache with a Needs Maintenance, or using Needs Archived to report a serious issue is an entirely separate matter. How do you understand the circumstances of a cache without finding it?

 

It might be a little strange to write a glowing review of the cache and then log NA. But just logging it as found is a simple matter of fact, not a comment on the quality or legality of the cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines

 

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

 

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't feel right logging a find on a cache but then logging a NA because i believed the cache ran afoul of GC.com guidelines. It's good enough to log, kinda like i'm condoning it, but at the same time, it's not good enough to stay published on the website.

 

This doesn't make any sense. If you've found a cache, you've found it. The find log is a record of that.

 

Reporting on the condition of the cache with a Needs Maintenance, or using Needs Archived to report a serious issue is an entirely separate matter. How do you understand the circumstances of a cache without finding it?

 

It might be a little strange to write a glowing review of the cache and then log NA. But just logging it as found is a simple matter of fact, not a comment on the quality or legality of the cache.

 

Yes, posting a found it log on a cache one has found is simply a statement of fact. That doesn't change out one might *feel* about posting both a found it log and a NA log and there is nothing wrong with feeling hypocrisy doing both. Similarly, technically we can log a found it on a tree cache as long as it has been signed (even if someone else did the tree climbing and physically signed the log sheet. Some might not *feel* right about logging a found it on a cache they didn't actually touch and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines

 

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

 

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't feel right logging a find on a cache but then logging a NA because i believed the cache ran afoul of GC.com guidelines. It's good enough to log, kinda like i'm condoning it, but at the same time, it's not good enough to stay published on the website.

 

This doesn't make any sense. If you've found a cache, you've found it. The find log is a record of that.

 

Reporting on the condition of the cache with a Needs Maintenance, or using Needs Archived to report a serious issue is an entirely separate matter. How do you understand the circumstances of a cache without finding it?

 

It might be a little strange to write a glowing review of the cache and then log NA. But just logging it as found is a simple matter of fact, not a comment on the quality or legality of the cache.

I do agree with you there, it is a statement that the cache was found.

 

My thinking, which is different, maybe even a little weird, is that a cache needs to be published in good standing on GC.com when i log it. Yes, a cache that i log NA on is published but, should it have been? If after the NA, it gets taken down by a reviewer, was it a legitimate cache?

 

This is similar to caches placed for events where people get the coordinates before they are published. I'm simply not interested in these until they're actually listed on the website.

[+narcissa]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines

 

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

 

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't feel right logging a find on a cache but then logging a NA because i believed the cache ran afoul of GC.com guidelines. It's good enough to log, kinda like i'm condoning it, but at the same time, it's not good enough to stay published on the website.

 

This doesn't make any sense. If you've found a cache, you've found it. The find log is a record of that.

 

Reporting on the condition of the cache with a Needs Maintenance, or using Needs Archived to report a serious issue is an entirely separate matter. How do you understand the circumstances of a cache without finding it?

 

It might be a little strange to write a glowing review of the cache and then log NA. But just logging it as found is a simple matter of fact, not a comment on the quality or legality of the cache.

I do agree with you there, it is a statement that the cache was found.

 

My thinking, which is different, maybe even a little weird, is that a cache needs to be published in good standing on GC.com when i log it. Yes, a cache that i log NA on is published but, should it have been? If after the NA, it gets taken down by a reviewer, was it a legitimate cache?

 

This is similar to caches placed for events where people get the coordinates before they are published. I'm simply not interested in these until they're actually listed on the website.

 

I can see what you mean, but it's one of those things that is a matter of individual preference, so I think the word hypocrite is a little strong. I see so many situations where the first dozen finders don't comment on an obvious guidelines issue at all, they just log the find, because people don't want to rock the boat. Adding in this other layer just means it is even more unlikely that someone will point out an issue.

[+colleda]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines

 

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

 

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't feel right logging a find on a cache but then logging a NA because i believed the cache ran afoul of GC.com guidelines. It's good enough to log, kinda like i'm condoning it, but at the same time, it's not good enough to stay published on the website.

 

This doesn't make any sense. If you've found a cache, you've found it. The find log is a record of that.

 

Reporting on the condition of the cache with a Needs Maintenance, or using Needs Archived to report a serious issue is an entirely separate matter. How do you understand the circumstances of a cache without finding it?

 

It might be a little strange to write a glowing review of the cache and then log NA. But just logging it as found is a simple matter of fact, not a comment on the quality or legality of the cache.

I do agree with you there, it is a statement that the cache was found.

 

My thinking, which is different, maybe even a little weird, is that a cache needs to be published in good standing on GC.com when i log it. Yes, a cache that i log NA on is published but, should it have been? If after the NA, it gets taken down by a reviewer, was it a legitimate cache?

 

This is similar to caches placed for events where people get the coordinates before they are published. I'm simply not interested in these until they're actually listed on the website.

 

I can see what you mean, but it's one of those things that is a matter of individual preference, so I think the word hypocrite is a little strong. I see so many situations where the first dozen finders don't comment on an obvious guidelines issue at all, they just log the find, because people don't want to rock the boat. Adding in this other layer just means it is even more unlikely that someone will point out an issue.

Agreed. This seems to be the case with the cache in my OP. And, it is not unique.

[+lee737]

Found a buried cache today and posted a NA. Asbestos suit on standby.

 

How is the asbestos going?? Warming up??

[+NanCycle]

Found a buried cache today and posted a NA. Asbestos suit on standby.

 

Who encrypted your Found log and who deleted your NA log?

[Andronicus]

No reason not to log it, if you found it. I occasionally log finds on caches that violate the listing guidelines

 

Why? It's not against the guidelines to FIND it; it's against the guidelines to HIDE it that way.

 

Just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't feel right logging a find on a cache but then logging a NA because i believed the cache ran afoul of GC.com guidelines. It's good enough to log, kinda like i'm condoning it, but at the same time, it's not good enough to stay published on the website.

 

This doesn't make any sense. If you've found a cache, you've found it. The find log is a record of that.

 

Reporting on the condition of the cache with a Needs Maintenance, or using Needs Archived to report a serious issue is an entirely separate matter. How do you understand the circumstances of a cache without finding it?

 

It might be a little strange to write a glowing review of the cache and then log NA. But just logging it as found is a simple matter of fact, not a comment on the quality or legality of the cache.

I do agree with you there, it is a statement that the cache was found.

 

My thinking, which is different, maybe even a little weird, is that a cache needs to be published in good standing on GC.com when i log it. Yes, a cache that i log NA on is published but, should it have been? If after the NA, it gets taken down by a reviewer, was it a legitimate cache?

 

This is similar to caches placed for events where people get the coordinates before they are published. I'm simply not interested in these until they're actually listed on the website.

Really? A cache doesn't need to be published in good standing on GC.com when I log it. Active, disabled, or archived, doesn't matter. If I found it, I log it. Of course, if the disable or archive is due to safety , permission, or needing to violation of law to make the find, I won't find it; but that is a different situation than we are talking about here.

[+NeverSummer]

At risk of I don't know what... (There are still some admin bricks out there, I'm sure) best get it back on topic:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I *think* there was another thread to discuss.

 

But hey, have at!

[+DM&K Cachers]

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

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

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

No holes needed to be drilled.

 

I know this post was quite a while ago, but it is exactly what I'm looking for. We had a cache like this (possibly the one BC&MsKitty is referring to) and it was archived without notice. We were told that it was a violation, and to this day I do not know why. BC&MsKitty, why was this cache "of course" a violation? Do you know how it was placed? Are you basing this on an assumption?

 

We did not drill a hole into the tree. A cut part of a fallen branch provided cover for the bison that sat nicely in the dead end of a pruned branch. With the bison removed, there is no trace of a cache ever having been there. We did not go to GZ with the intention of placing it that way, but the dead stub provided a perfect hiding spot. It seems to me that when people can't find something, they complain about it.

 

I asked the reviewer for an explanation for the archiving and did not get any details. We also went through the appeals process and was told that "photos provided enough evidence of violation"; however, when I asked for the photos there was no reply.

 

I think it is unfair for reviewers to judge without seeing the cache or consulting with the CO as to how it was placed. I understand that reviewers are volunteers, but the rules need to be applied the same to everyone. If there was no damage to the tree, the cache should be able to stay. It sucks when well-intended COs are shut down. I ONLY hide and maintain caches to give back to the community that has provided us so much fun over the years, but I've hid my last for sure.

[+wmpastor]

The State probably doesn't even have a problem with it, because it is getting more people involved and interested in our natural resources.

 

Nothing shows more involvement and interest in our natural resources than taking a power drill and drilling out a hole in a utility pole ("abandoned" or otherwise)

 

I still have not voted guilty to the "holes in poles" examples. Why? We don't know who did the drilling! In my area there are still some older poles in use that had L-shaped brackets installed every 12 inches or so. Utility workers climbed them. These have since been removed - I suppose because kids would climb them.

 

What remains? HOLES - drilled by the utility company!

[+narcissa]

The State probably doesn't even have a problem with it, because it is getting more people involved and interested in our natural resources.

 

Nothing shows more involvement and interest in our natural resources than taking a power drill and drilling out a hole in a utility pole ("abandoned" or otherwise)

 

I still have not voted guilty to the "holes in poles" examples. Why? We don't know who did the drilling! In my area there are still some older poles in use that had L-shaped brackets installed every 12 inches or so. Utility workers climbed them. These have since been removed - I suppose because kids would climb them.

 

What remains? HOLES - drilled by the utility company!

 

In which case the best practice for cache placement involving those pre-existing holes is to indicate this information to the reviewer and document with photos in case there are concerns.