You Can't Do That

[+cerberus1]

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.

+1 Yep.

We've seen, and known of a few who didn't let the Reviewer know right off-the-bat about things (screws and nails mostly), to later have issues with their cache over it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

We've seen, and known of a few who didn't let the Reviewer know right off-the-bat about things (screws and nails mostly), to later have issues with their cache over it.

 

Sometimes I wonder. Did a series of caches. 80% were hung on cup hooks screwed into trees. Two were bison tubes glued to bottle caps, which fit into tubes sunk into the ground. Those got a lot of favorite points! Sometimes I wonder how many cache hiders pay attention to guidelines?

[+ThistleMae]

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.

 

 

We found one like this, very similar. The geocacher drilled a small hole inside a telephone pole, underneath a set of letters attached to the pole, which identifies the pole number. You had to lift up the attached letters, which were nailed to the pole. One of the nails was very loose, you had to lift it out to move the numbers to see the cache. We wondered if this was legal or not.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

 

We found one like this, very similar. The geocacher drilled a small hole inside a telephone pole, underneath a set of letters attached to the pole, which identifies the pole number. You had to lift up the attached letters, which were nailed to the pole. One of the nails was very loose, you had to lift it out to move the numbers to see the cache. We wondered if this was legal or not.

 

Probably illegal destruction of property, not to mention a pretty serious violation of cache placement guidelines.

[+eosxt]

Why is the digging a hole such a big deal? I mean that's THE big one, the ultimate No-No, yet comparatively it's a lot less damaging than other lesser violations. How big of a hole are we talking anyway? An ammo can sized hole? The critters in my woods make bigger holes than that and yet the ecosystem goes on.

[+lee737]

Why is the digging a hole such a big deal?

 

Imagine every cacher being armed with a shovel now, poking around, scraping/digging for the buried cache, which of course will get deeper as leaf litter accumulates..... I think we would be banned pretty fast....

[+eosxt]

Why is the digging a hole such a big deal?

Imagine every cacher being armed with a shovel now, poking around, scraping/digging for the buried cache, which of course will get deeper as leaf litter accumulates..... I think we would be banned pretty fast....

 

makes sense

[+narcissa]

Why is the digging a hole such a big deal?

 

Imagine every cacher being armed with a shovel now, poking around, scraping/digging for the buried cache, which of course will get deeper as leaf litter accumulates..... I think we would be banned pretty fast....

 

Yes, the perception that we dig holes continues to vex geocachers in many places where the game is still banned for this reason.

[+on4bam]

Why is the digging a hole such a big deal?

 

Imagine every cacher being armed with a shovel now, poking around, scraping/digging for the buried cache, which of course will get deeper as leaf litter accumulates..... I think we would be banned pretty fast....

 

You think wrong

A lot of caches around here are buried without any problems and no one is armed with a shovel or is digging. Most of the caches are in a buried encasement that has a cover on it. Just tapping the ground with a stick will get you the sound of the cover, remove leaves, remove cover, get cachebox, sign log, replace everything, put cover back and spread leaves again. Even after many years the hole is exactly the same size as when the cache was placed.

 

As this is a global activity, what's frowned upon in one area can just as well be common practice elsewhere.

[+hzoi]

I recently started logging a geo art series in my area and found that most of the caches were PET preforms that had been pushed into the sandy dirt, leaving only the cap showing. I thought this violated the "no burying caches" rule and dropped one of the local reviewers a line, but I was told that this manner of hiding a cache is apparently copacetic. News to me.

[+eosxt]

I recently started logging a geo art series in my area and found that most of the caches were PET preforms that had been pushed into the sandy dirt, leaving only the cap showing. I thought this violated the "no burying caches" rule and dropped one of the local reviewers a line, but I was told that this manner of hiding a cache is apparently copacetic. News to me.

 

I'm all for following the guidelines, But why tattle???

[+Manville Possum]

I recently started logging a geo art series in my area and found that most of the caches were PET preforms that had been pushed into the sandy dirt, leaving only the cap showing. I thought this violated the "no burying caches" rule and dropped one of the local reviewers a line, but I was told that this manner of hiding a cache is apparently copacetic. News to me.

 

I'm all for following the guidelines, But why tattle???

 

The Cache Police

[+niraD]

I'm all for following the guidelines, But why tattle???

Perhaps because caches that violate the guidelines can create problems for everyone (e.g., entire parks that became off-limits to geocaching thanks to caches that involved digging).

[+Harry Dolphin]

I recently started logging a geo art series in my area and found that most of the caches were PET preforms that had been pushed into the sandy dirt, leaving only the cap showing. I thought this violated the "no burying caches" rule and dropped one of the local reviewers a line, but I was told that this manner of hiding a cache is apparently copacetic. News to me.

 

Well, I have not complained to the reviewer, but I did a GeoArt where most of the containers were hanging from cup hooks screwed into trees. Two were small bison tubes glued to bottle tops, and inserted into the ground.

[+hzoi]

The Cache Police

 

Heh. Well played, my possum pal. But as you'll see, I did leave it to the professionals.

 

I recently started logging a geo art series in my area and found that most of the caches were PET preforms that had been pushed into the sandy dirt, leaving only the cap showing. I thought this violated the "no burying caches" rule and dropped one of the local reviewers a line, but I was told that this manner of hiding a cache is apparently copacetic. News to me.

 

I'm all for following the guidelines, But why tattle???

 

I didn't post "Needs Archived" or call the cache owner out publicly. First I tried contacting the cache owner offline to see if they had gotten the prior ok from the reviewer, but they never responded. So then I emailed and let the reviewer know that I had found a few caches that had been pushed into the dirt and thought it might be an issue. I asked the reviewer whether they had been aware that the caches were hidden that way when they got published. The reply was yes, the reviewer was aware and yes, that was OK.

 

niraD's post is why I did it -- I didn't want to run the risk of another National Park Service-type debacle. I addressed what I thought might be an issue as discreetly as I could. Since you've been caching even longer than I have, I'm surprised you think that raising a potential issue with a 50+ cache series that might ruin geocaching for everyone in the area counts as "tattling," but I guess your mileage may vary. If you think that makes me a tattle tale, I think I'll still be able to sleep at night.

Edited August 31, 2016 by hzoi

[+fuzziebear3]

I also thought the 'pushed into the ground' was against the guidelines. Has that been changed again recently?

[+narcissa]

I also thought the 'pushed into the ground' was against the guidelines. Has that been changed again recently?

 

My understanding was that it was permitted, within reason.

[+cheech gang]

I also thought the 'pushed into the ground' was against the guidelines. Has that been changed again recently?

 

My understanding was that it was permitted, within reason.

 

I missed that memo.

[+narcissa]

I also thought the 'pushed into the ground' was against the guidelines. Has that been changed again recently?

 

My understanding was that it was permitted, within reason.

 

I missed that memo.

 

This is just what I have gathered from conversations with reviewers on occasions when I've found caches of concern. They don't seem to be terribly bothered if they don't think a tool was used to hide, or is required to dig out the cache.

 

There's no need to get snarky at me about it. I didn't say it was in the guidelines or that it had been communicated widely. This is just the broad brushstrokes of my understanding based on personal discussions, and my understanding is certainly open to change with new information.

[+wmpastor]

I also thought the 'pushed into the ground' was against the guidelines. Has that been changed again recently?

 

Apparently sand has looser rules than soil, maybe because sand is looser than soil.

 

Maybe the (questionable) reasoning is that if you remove something small from loose sand, the hole instantly disappears as the sand fills back in.

[+hzoi]

I also thought the 'pushed into the ground' was against the guidelines. Has that been changed again recently?

 

My understanding was that it was permitted, within reason.

 

I missed that memo.

 

Clearly I did, too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

There's no need to get snarky at me about it.

 

I don't see anything snarky about cheech's reply, or at least no snark directed to you, but ymmv.

Edited September 1, 2016 by hzoi

[+jellis]

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!

You said it. An OLD pole, why is there a NEW hole in it?

[+jellis]

I recently started logging a geo art series in my area and found that most of the caches were PET preforms that had been pushed into the sandy dirt, leaving only the cap showing. I thought this violated the "no burying caches" rule and dropped one of the local reviewers a line, but I was told that this manner of hiding a cache is apparently copacetic. News to me.

 

I'm all for following the guidelines, But why tattle???

 

The Cache Police

I like "Monkey See, Monkey Do.

I know one cacher who buried a 5gal paint bucket. Said He saw other do it.

[+lee737]

An earlier log from a cache we found recently, yes, it is still 60 feet out..... very close? Not IMO....

 

 

[+cerberus1]

An earlier log from a cache we found recently, yes, it is still 60 feet out..... very close? Not IMO....

 

And only one NM since then. Yep, that's weird...

[+lee737]

Honest, but a bit tough!

 

 

[+boothie103]

What happens if the cup hook is screwed into an introduced tree, the hole is drilled into a treated pine pole, the cache is hidden in a hole where the soil or sand is dumped or hidden in a foreign plant? God forbid, half to three quarters of my finds were illegal! Chill out, it is a game!

[+Ben0w]

What happens if the cup hook is screwed into an introduced tree, the hole is drilled into a treated pine pole, the cache is hidden in a hole where the soil or sand is dumped or hidden in a foreign plant? God forbid, half to three quarters of my finds were illegal! Chill out, it is a game!

Which isn't an excuse to affect some other's property. It's not a game to them. Such hides may lead (and already have) to bans of geocaching in certain areas. Then, the game isn't possible there any more just because someone isn't creative enough to find a hiding spot respecting the rules (and respecting local laws as well as nature and land owners).

[+WVTim]

How I work with the reviewer : When a CO wants to place a post in the ground, the CO must obtain permission from the property owner/manager and provide proof of this permission with contact info, to the reviewer, when submitted for approval. The cache page should have a clear statement that permission was given by the property owner for that of hide and attachment. Make this prominent so that would-be copiers are more likely to see it. The CO should commit to the land owner that they are willing to fill the hole should the cache NOT be approved for any reason or when the cache is removed. Note this to the reviewer.

 

So, get permission early, document it, send it all the reviewer, and agree to restore the property to its original state after the cache is removed or approval is NOT granted. This is how I work with my reviewer.

 

How I work with my property owners : When getting permission from the land owner, I take my finished cache (birdhouse) and my post to them so they can see what to expect. I go in great detail about everything. I show them how the cache works, where the log is and what the cache finder will be doing when they arrive at the property. I tell them how long to expect them to be there. Some of my caches, the finders might be there for 1/2 hour working on it. Make sure they know that. I work with them to find a location we both can agree on. I estimate how many visits they can expect each week or month. They might be thinking 5 and reality it is more like 100, they need to know that. What hours will they allow visitors to there property. I let them know that I will post that but there are people who will break the rules.... be honest with them. I go into great detail on how I will maintain it. I give them my contact info. Try to review everything with them, leaving no stone unturned. I then go back after the first week and see if everything is working ok with them, do they have any questions or concerns. I go back in a month and review the logs with them and cachers reaction to the cache and there place of business. Then I go back at least once a quarter to make sure everything is ok. I build relationships with my property owners. They talk to other property owners about their experience with me and the visitor's to their property. Next thing you know, property owners are calling you, asking for geocache on their location.

 

Just recently, I have had some good dialog with HQ about this. If your reviewer sees this differently, I would open another discussion with them and agree to do the things outlined above. Good luck !!