Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
TeamEller

Cache violating guidelines

Recommended Posts

I found recently a cache which is violating the guidelines - it is screwed to a tree. What can I do about that? There is no "Flag as inappropriate" or something like this on the cache profile.

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

Share this post


Link to post

If this hide has been going for some time, I'd just email the Reviewer, letting them know what you believe is the issue.

- You've accomplished what bothered you, and now someone's aware. :)

 

Along the lines of Keystone's note, we found a cache a couple years ago that was secured by a hole drilled through a limb.

Landowner a friend, asked him if he knew what that was about and was told, "Yeah, I told them it was okay".

Share this post


Link to post

In most cases, it's perfectly fine to attach caches with screws if the tree or stump or log is "dead". Also, as noted, if you get permission to use screws or nails from the landowner it is also fine. I am continually struct by the rigid enforcement of this "guideline" as I walk through the forest following trail signs attached to live trees with nails and screws. My record find is 10 nails in one tree in a town forest.

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

 

If a land manager gave permission, shouldn't it be noted in the cache description?

 

Sometimes I think it would be a good idea if a photo of the cache at the location had to be submitted before a cache is published. Around my area I'd say about every 50 finds, I find a cache screwed to a forest tree/trail post or other public post/public or private fence. If you look at all the caches that people think are very creative, many of those are screwed, or drilled into things. Do a google image search for : creative geocache. About 1/3 of the photos show caches screwed or obviously drilled. Some that are questionably in holes that are suspiciously exactly the size of the container and give the impression that the owner drilled the hole.

Share this post


Link to post

In most cases, it's perfectly fine to attach caches with screws if the tree or stump or log is "dead".

 

The guidelines don't say that dead trees/stumps are an exception.

 

It's the monkey see monkey do principle. A hole in a dead tree is OK, then a hole in a live tree is OK too. A 1/2 inch hole is OK, then a 4 inch hole is OK too. A hole in that guy's fence is OK (he owns the fence), a hole drilled into the kiosk at the trailhead is OK too.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the over-arching guideline was that, when the cache is removed there should be no trace it was there....

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the over-arching guideline was that, when the cache is removed there should be no trace it was there....

 

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post

I always follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. And I also mind my own business because you never know what the actual facts are. I used to be a cache-guideline-cop, until I made a fool of myself.

Share this post


Link to post

I always follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. And I also mind my own business because you never know what the actual facts are. I used to be a cache-guideline-cop, until I made a fool of myself.

 

Still, if defacement or damage is involved, permission info should be clearly stated in the cache discription. In the embarrassing case you were involved in, was that information clearly and publicly available?

Share this post


Link to post

I always follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. And I also mind my own business because you never know what the actual facts are. I used to be a cache-guideline-cop, until I made a fool of myself.

 

Still, if defacement or damage is involved, permission info should be clearly stated in the cache discription. In the embarrassing case you were involved in, was that information clearly and publicly available?

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, which is what your statement is. And I am not suggesting I agree or disagree.

Share this post


Link to post

I always follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. And I also mind my own business because you never know what the actual facts are. I used to be a cache-guideline-cop, until I made a fool of myself.

 

Still, if defacement or damage is involved, permission info should be clearly stated in the cache discription. In the embarrassing case you were involved in, was that information clearly and publicly available?

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, which is what your statement is. And I am not suggesting I agree or disagree.

 

My statement isn't an opinion. I present Part I, Section 1, subsection 4 of the guidelines:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

  1. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

 

Which renders the relevant guideline defunct?

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

 

Which renders the relevant guideline defunct?

I bolded the relevant portion for you.

 

While the guidelines are usually the norm, there have been exceptions.

 

There's a different guideline that geocaches must be at least 528 feet apart as well. I know of a few cases where exceptions were granted and physical caches have been allowed to be closer than 528 feet.

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

 

Which renders the relevant guideline defunct?

I bolded the relevant portion for you.

 

While the guidelines are usually the norm, there have been exceptions.

 

There's a different guideline that geocaches must be at least 528 feet apart as well. I know of a few cases where exceptions were granted and physical caches have been allowed to be closer than 528 feet.

 

Oddly the 528 feet thing is super rare. But drilling/screwing into trees/posts/fences/utility poles fairly normal, and increasing in popularity because they get a lot of favorite points.

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

 

Which renders the relevant guideline defunct?

I bolded the relevant portion for you.

 

While the guidelines are usually the norm, there have been exceptions.

 

There's a different guideline that geocaches must be at least 528 feet apart as well. I know of a few cases where exceptions were granted and physical caches have been allowed to be closer than 528 feet.

 

Oddly the 528 feet thing is super rare. But drilling/screwing into trees/posts/fences/utility poles fairly normal, and increasing in popularity because they get a lot of favorite points.

It doesn't seem that long ago that it wasn't mentioned in the guidelines. I can't remember when the rule changed (edit: or was added).

 

That said, I suspect that few of them are actually done with both landowner permission and reviewer knowledge, and I fully recognize that the norm is not to do it -- just as the norm is 528 feet betwixt and between, etc.

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't seem that long ago that it wasn't mentioned in the guidelines. I can't remember when the rule changed (edit: or was added).

From the November 2003 guidelines: "... geocachers NEVER deface public or private property..."

 

From the list of things that are "off limits" in the November 2005 guidelines: "Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method."

 

From the list of things that are "off limits" in the February 2007 guidelines: "Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method."

(Emphasis added.)

 

This tour through the history of DA ROOLZ the listing guidelines is brought to you as a public service by the Supreme High Judiciary of the Groundspeak Forums.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see why some think that because a cache is on private property, with owner's permission, then the guidelines don't apply. If it was allowed you get the 'monkey see, monkey do" situation where cachers think its a great idea then go and deface/damage public property.

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't seem that long ago that it wasn't mentioned in the guidelines. I can't remember when the rule changed (edit: or was added).

From the November 2003 guidelines: "... geocachers NEVER deface public or private property..."

 

From the list of things that are "off limits" in the November 2005 guidelines: "Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method."

 

From the list of things that are "off limits" in the February 2007 guidelines: "Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method."

(Emphasis added.)

 

This tour through the history of DA ROOLZ the listing guidelines is brought to you as a public service by the Supreme High Judiciary of the Groundspeak Forums.

 

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to respond to my earlier question then - in the interests of clarification?

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

 

Which renders the relevant guideline defunct?

I bolded the relevant portion for you.

 

While the guidelines are usually the norm, there have been exceptions.

 

There's a different guideline that geocaches must be at least 528 feet apart as well. I know of a few cases where exceptions were granted and physical caches have been allowed to be closer than 528 feet.

 

The guidelines are not just guidelines. The title of the page is "Geocaching Listing Requirements/Guidelines". That implies to me that some of the guidelines are, in fact, requirements which do not have exceptions. However, do to the fact that reviewer do not visit every cache in situ before hitting the publish button, some caches which appear to violate *requirements* will slip through the facts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't seem that long ago that it wasn't mentioned in the guidelines. I can't remember when the rule changed (edit: or was added).

From the November 2003 guidelines: "... geocachers NEVER deface public or private property..."

 

From the list of things that are "off limits" in the November 2005 guidelines: "Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method."

 

From the list of things that are "off limits" in the February 2007 guidelines: "Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method."

(Emphasis added.)

 

This tour through the history of DA ROOLZ the listing guidelines is brought to you as a public service by the Supreme High Judiciary of the Groundspeak Forums.

Thank you, learned colleague. I should clarify that it doesn't seem that long ago that screws and nails were not given as examples of defacement, or at least that they were not called out as being in violation of the guideline against defacement. I don't know if that was just for my locality at the time or what, though obviously the word has gotten out since that nails in trees = bad.

Share this post


Link to post

I always follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. And I also mind my own business because you never know what the actual facts are. I used to be a cache-guideline-cop, until I made a fool of myself.

 

Still, if defacement or damage is involved, permission info should be clearly stated in the cache discription. In the embarrassing case you were involved in, was that information clearly and publicly available?

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, which is what your statement is. And I am not suggesting I agree or disagree.

 

My statement isn't an opinion. I present Part I, Section 1, subsection 4 of the guidelines:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

  1. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

I know you like to argue just to hear yourself speak. So I'll point out exactly what I was referring to...

 

permission info should be clearly stated in the cache discription.

 

Note, the spelling issue wasn't me.

Share this post


Link to post

I always follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. And I also mind my own business because you never know what the actual facts are. I used to be a cache-guideline-cop, until I made a fool of myself.

 

Still, if defacement or damage is involved, permission info should be clearly stated in the cache discription. In the embarrassing case you were involved in, was that information clearly and publicly available?

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, which is what your statement is. And I am not suggesting I agree or disagree.

 

My statement isn't an opinion. I present Part I, Section 1, subsection 4 of the guidelines:

 

https://www.geocachi...guidelines.aspx

  1. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

I know you like to argue just to hear yourself speak. So I'll point out exactly what I was referring to...

 

permission info should be clearly stated in the cache discription description.

 

Note, the spelling issue wasn't me.

 

Your argument falls flat once you start picking on someone's typos.

 

I'm sorry that you feel it is a disservice to clearly provide information in the cache description, when violating guidelines/regulations 'with permission'.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to respond to my earlier question then - in the interests of clarification?

My answer to your earlier question, which I mistakenly took to be a rhetorical question, is "no."

Share this post


Link to post

I always follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. And I also mind my own business because you never know what the actual facts are. I used to be a cache-guideline-cop, until I made a fool of myself.

 

Still, if defacement or damage is involved, permission info should be clearly stated in the cache discription. In the embarrassing case you were involved in, was that information clearly and publicly available?

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, which is what your statement is. And I am not suggesting I agree or disagree.

 

My statement isn't an opinion. I present Part I, Section 1, subsection 4 of the guidelines:

 

https://www.geocachi...guidelines.aspx

  1. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

I know you like to argue just to hear yourself speak. So I'll point out exactly what I was referring to...

 

permission info should be clearly stated in the cache discription description.

 

Note, the spelling issue wasn't me.

 

Your argument falls flat once you start picking on someone's typos.

 

I'm sorry that you feel it is a disservice to clearly provide information in the cache description, when violating guidelines/regulations 'with permission'.

 

Still having a difficult time comprehending my post so here is another snippet from above...

 

And I am not suggesting I agree or disagree.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to respond to my earlier question then - in the interests of clarification?

My answer to your earlier question, which I mistakenly took to be a rhetorical question, is "no."

 

Thanks - it wasn't rhetorical.

 

So - for further clarification - if you'll be so kind - the guideline:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

  1. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

Is NOT overridden by the land manager granting explicit permission for such damage / defacement / destruction - correct?

Share this post


Link to post
So - for further clarification - if you'll be so kind - the guideline:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

  1. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

Is NOT overridden by the land manager granting explicit permission for such damage / defacement / destruction - correct?

And what happens if the land manager installs a feature, and then tells the CO to use that feature to hide the cache? And does it matter if the feature has some other purpose (e.g., an irrigation control box, a Little Free Library) or if the feature was created specifically for the geocache?

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to respond to my earlier question then - in the interests of clarification?

My answer to your earlier question, which I mistakenly took to be a rhetorical question, is "no."

 

Thanks - it wasn't rhetorical.

 

So - for further clarification - if you'll be so kind - the guideline:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

  1. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

Is NOT overridden by the land manager granting explicit permission for such damage / defacement / destruction - correct?

This has been discussed before concerning buried caches. A land manager may allow a buried cache but it will not be published, presuming the CO is honest in the description. The reasons should be obvious.

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

 

So i guess i can dig a hole for my cache if i get explicit permission from the land owner?

 

I'm sure the answer is still a big fat no and if so, why is this any different?

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

So i guess i can dig a hole for my cache if i get explicit permission from the land owner?

 

I'm sure the answer is still a big fat no and if so, why is this any different?

I'll be interested to hear if Keystone has a different interpretation, but here's how I see it.

 

It's all about the wording.

 

The buried cache guideline is very unequivocal (bolding mine):

Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

This guideline does not allow for flexibility. In reality, this is a rule, not just a guideline. There are no exceptions, except caches that were hidden before this guideline was created or modified to its current hard-and-fast state.

 

Now, the damage guidelines reads as follows:

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

If you have the permission of the property owner/manager, then it isn't damaging, defacing, or destroying, is it? This allows for more flexibility and judgement by reviewers to allow some caches as long as the modification was done with the adequate permission.

Share this post


Link to post

You can log a "Needs Archived" log, or you can write an email to your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Please note, it's possible that the land manager gave express permission for the container to be attached in that manner.

So i guess i can dig a hole for my cache if i get explicit permission from the land owner?

 

I'm sure the answer is still a big fat no and if so, why is this any different?

I'll be interested to hear if Keystone has a different interpretation, but here's how I see it.

 

It's all about the wording.

 

The buried cache guideline is very unequivocal (bolding mine):

Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

This guideline does not allow for flexibility. In reality, this is a rule, not just a guideline. There are no exceptions, except caches that were hidden before this guideline was created or modified to its current hard-and-fast state.

 

Now, the damage guidelines reads as follows:

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

If you have the permission of the property owner/manager, then it isn't damaging, defacing, or destroying, is it? This allows for more flexibility and judgement by reviewers to allow some caches as long as the modification was done with the adequate permission.

 

Where does the guideline say Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property unless express permission has been granted by person or persons with adequate authority to grant such permission?

 

Where does it say that reviewers shall be the arbiters of any judgements related to whether destruction, damage or defacement is acceptable / allowable?

 

And what happens when a claim is made that the destruction, damage or defacement has appropriate permission but it turns out the no such permission was ever given?

Share this post


Link to post

Now, the damage guidelines reads as follows:

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

If you have the permission of the property owner/manager, then it isn't damaging, defacing, or destroying, is it? This allows for more flexibility and judgement by reviewers to allow some caches as long as the modification was done with the adequate permission.

Damage, defacing and destruction is damage, defacing and destruction regardless of whether or not you have permission to do it. The only difference owner permission makes is whether or not the person responsible can be prosecuted for the damage, defacing or destruction.

 

I think the confusion with this rule is because of the obscure wording though. It's debatable whether a small screw to hold a cache on a privately owned fence post can really be said to be damaging the fence, or if a small nail on a tree is really damaging the tree. But if, for example, you cut a slot into the fence post big enough to hold a medium sized cache or if you bored a deep hole into the tree so you can hide a cache covered with some bark then yes, that would be damage.

 

Ultimately I think it's up to the reviewer, although you're entitled to present a convincing argument if you wish. I'd suggest erring on the side of caution and not placing the cache if you're not sure though, or at the very least ask your local reviewer's thoughts before placing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Damage, defacing and destruction is damage, defacing and destruction regardless of whether or not you have permission to do it. The only difference owner permission makes is whether or not the person responsible can be prosecuted for the damage, defacing or destruction.
Really?

 

If I walk out to my own yard and tear down my own fence, then that's my right as the owner of that fence. Do you really think that could be considered damage, defacement, or destruction in the sense the geocaching guidelines use the terms?

Share this post


Link to post

Here is an excellent example of a bad one. A wooden mailbox post. Permission given to hide on this post.

The cache owner drilled a hole to hold a film canister. Attached a hinged lid of wood to cover the hide.

I found it and the husband of the woman who gave permission came up to me to talk. I asked if he was to CO,

No he said. He then told me his wife gave the permission. I told him that hide was a violation of guidelines.

I let the reviewer know that he had better go see this set up. The hide was immediately archived.

Defacing in any manner private or public property is not allowed. You may not place a screw into a dead tree either.

Not even a wooden fence post. Doing so is the same as spiking a tree. Which is what the anti logging people do.

A chain saw or other power saw hitting this will explode.

Share this post


Link to post

@niraD: Yes, it's your right and no that's not the same. One is hardly going to tear down an entire fence to hide a geocache.

 

@Mn-treker: Yep, that's a good example. I doubt that boring a hole in the mailbox post was what the land owner had in mind when they gave permission.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone has a good point & bad. If each truly feels that these caches are good/bad then act accordingly.

 

Do not post a find because that sends a message it's OK for the placement.

 

Instead a note stating what is wrong with Cache & request review/removal.

 

Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
@niraD: Yes, it's your right and no that's not the same. One is hardly going to tear down an entire fence to hide a geocache.
No, I probably won't tear down a fence, but I might drill a hole in a post. And people drill holes in posts anyway, for reasons other than geocaching. And I've found geocaches hidden in some of these pre-existing holes.

 

So if a property manager drills a hole in a post (for whatever reason), and then tells the cache owner to use that hole to hide the cache, I don't see how that can be considered damage, defacement, or destruction.

Share this post


Link to post

Now, the damage guidelines reads as follows:

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

If you have the permission of the property owner/manager, then it isn't damaging, defacing, or destroying, is it? This allows for more flexibility and judgement by reviewers to allow some caches as long as the modification was done with the adequate permission.

Damage, defacing and destruction is damage, defacing and destruction regardless of whether or not you have permission to do it. The only difference owner permission makes is whether or not the person responsible can be prosecuted for the damage, defacing or destruction.

Uh, what?

So someone making modifications to their own property is damaging, defacing, or destroying it? I guess we should change the name of "construction workers" to "professional defacers"?

 

The terms "damage", "deface", and "destroy" are implicitly negative, unwanted actions. If the owner of the property grants permission for the modification, surely it's no longer a negative, unwanted action, is it? Or are we really supposed to be going to property owners and asking for their explicit permission to damage, deface, or destroy their property?

Share this post


Link to post

Now, the damage guidelines reads as follows:

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

If you have the permission of the property owner/manager, then it isn't damaging, defacing, or destroying, is it? This allows for more flexibility and judgement by reviewers to allow some caches as long as the modification was done with the adequate permission.

Damage, defacing and destruction is damage, defacing and destruction regardless of whether or not you have permission to do it. The only difference owner permission makes is whether or not the person responsible can be prosecuted for the damage, defacing or destruction.

Uh, what?

So someone making modifications to their own property is damaging, defacing, or destroying it? I guess we should change the name of "construction workers" to "professional defacers"?

 

The terms "damage", "deface", and "destroy" are implicitly negative, unwanted actions. If the owner of the property grants permission for the modification, surely it's no longer a negative, unwanted action, is it? Or are we really supposed to be going to property owners and asking for their explicit permission to damage, deface, or destroy their property?

I agree -- "damage" and "deface" connotes wrongfulness, i.e., without permission.

 

Still brings us back to two things: if you're drilling or whatever, you need not only landowner permission, but also an exception from the reviewer to publish. Best to get both before drilling or boring or what have you.

Share this post


Link to post

I walk through the forest following trail signs attached to live trees with nails and screws. My record find is 10 nails in one tree in a town forest.

But these weren't done by geocachers. This is already a monkey see monkey do. Just because a park does it doesn't mean us as geocachers should. As I keep saying anythingyou do to change what is already there to create a place for a cache would be considered vandalism because you are damaging something. If you dig a hole, or screw into a tree or even paint something on public or private property is vandalism. But if you found a piece of wood on the ground (not attached to a tree) and drill a hole that is different. If it was part of the landscaping I would not advise it. I would suggest making something and adding to the spot without doing any damage.

I was recently told that drilling a hole in a utility pole if caught you could get fined for damaging their property. And I have seen many drilled out holes, holes in gardens to put a pipe in, screws in trees.

I usually report them directly to the reviewer because I had too many COs and cachers give me a hard time about it. And I know I am not the only one reporting them now this way.

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it so difficult to just lead by example and don't hide caches in a way excluded by the guidelines, regardless of landowner permission or not? After all, someone will see this big hole dug into someones front garden for a cache, or a cache nailed to a tree in the same, think it's a good idea and copy it in the wild.

Share this post


Link to post

The terms "damage", "deface", and "destroy" are implicitly negative, unwanted actions. If the owner of the property grants permission for the modification, surely it's no longer a negative, unwanted action, is it? Or are we really supposed to be going to property owners and asking for their explicit permission to damage, deface, or destroy their property?

I agree -- "damage" and "deface" connotes wrongfulness, i.e., without permission.

 

I disagree.

 

Smoking tobacco products harms your health - that's a fact, irrespective of any permission.

 

And, knowing this, if I choose to smoke - where's the wrongfulness? The damage meanwhile will continue, right, wrong or indifferent.

 

In the context of geocaching, damage, defacement and destruction are still damage, defacement and destruction even if the owner has given permission.

Share this post


Link to post

Use common sense. If we worried about everyone without common sense and how they might interpret what you did, we wouldn't do anything. Leave those without common sense for the lawyers as that is what fuels their livelihood.

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it so difficult to just lead by example and don't hide caches in a way excluded by the guidelines, regardless of landowner permission or not? After all, someone will see this big hole dug into someones front garden for a cache, or a cache nailed to a tree in the same, think it's a good idea and copy it in the wild.

 

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

The whole reason for rules/guidelines/requirements are to protect ourselves from ourselves.

 

Many of my hides are on property that have a conservation restriction on them. Most CR's specifically prohibit digging, drilling or damaging the natural landscape in any way. Some even restrict potential foot traffic due to natural habitats.

 

No matter where you decide to hid a cache it would be prudent to do so as if you were hiding it on conservation land regardless of permission.

Share this post


Link to post

The terms "damage", "deface", and "destroy" are implicitly negative, unwanted actions. If the owner of the property grants permission for the modification, surely it's no longer a negative, unwanted action, is it? Or are we really supposed to be going to property owners and asking for their explicit permission to damage, deface, or destroy their property?

I agree -- "damage" and "deface" connotes wrongfulness, i.e., without permission.

 

I disagree.

 

Smoking tobacco products harms your health - that's a fact, irrespective of any permission.

 

And, knowing this, if I choose to smoke - where's the wrongfulness? The damage meanwhile will continue, right, wrong or indifferent.

 

In the context of geocaching, damage, defacement and destruction are still damage, defacement and destruction even if the owner has given permission.

Turns out that property and lungs are not the same things. But thank you for the apples to staplers comparison.

Share this post


Link to post

The terms "damage", "deface", and "destroy" are implicitly negative, unwanted actions. If the owner of the property grants permission for the modification, surely it's no longer a negative, unwanted action, is it? Or are we really supposed to be going to property owners and asking for their explicit permission to damage, deface, or destroy their property?

I agree -- "damage" and "deface" connotes wrongfulness, i.e., without permission.

 

I disagree.

 

Smoking tobacco products harms your health - that's a fact, irrespective of any permission.

 

And, knowing this, if I choose to smoke - where's the wrongfulness? The damage meanwhile will continue, right, wrong or indifferent.

 

In the context of geocaching, damage, defacement and destruction are still damage, defacement and destruction even if the owner has given permission.

Turns out that property and lungs are not the same things. But thank you for the apples to staplers comparison.

 

It was no more apples to staplers than the claim that permission somehow magically cancels out damage, defacement or destruction.

Share this post


Link to post

The terms "damage", "deface", and "destroy" are implicitly negative, unwanted actions. If the owner of the property grants permission for the modification, surely it's no longer a negative, unwanted action, is it? Or are we really supposed to be going to property owners and asking for their explicit permission to damage, deface, or destroy their property?

I agree -- "damage" and "deface" connotes wrongfulness, i.e., without permission.

 

I disagree.

 

Smoking tobacco products harms your health - that's a fact, irrespective of any permission.

 

And, knowing this, if I choose to smoke - where's the wrongfulness? The damage meanwhile will continue, right, wrong or indifferent.

 

In the context of geocaching, damage, defacement and destruction are still damage, defacement and destruction even if the owner has given permission.

Turns out that property and lungs are not the same things. But thank you for the apples to staplers comparison.

 

It was no more apples to staplers than the claim that permission somehow magically cancels out damage, defacement or destruction.

:rolleyes:

 

As we've already heard from a reviewer on how this can actually work (in what appears to be clear English to all but one person), go ahead and light up, but please save your tortured semantics for CNN, Ms. Conway.

Share this post


Link to post

The terms "damage", "deface", and "destroy" are implicitly negative, unwanted actions. If the owner of the property grants permission for the modification, surely it's no longer a negative, unwanted action, is it? Or are we really supposed to be going to property owners and asking for their explicit permission to damage, deface, or destroy their property?

I agree -- "damage" and "deface" connotes wrongfulness, i.e., without permission.

 

I disagree.

 

Smoking tobacco products harms your health - that's a fact, irrespective of any permission.

 

And, knowing this, if I choose to smoke - where's the wrongfulness? The damage meanwhile will continue, right, wrong or indifferent.

 

In the context of geocaching, damage, defacement and destruction are still damage, defacement and destruction even if the owner has given permission.

Turns out that property and lungs are not the same things. But thank you for the apples to staplers comparison.

 

It was no more apples to staplers than the claim that permission somehow magically cancels out damage, defacement or destruction.

:rolleyes:

 

As we've already heard from a reviewer on how this can actually work (in what appears to be clear English to all but one person), go ahead and light up, but please save your tortured semantics for CNN, Ms. Conway.

 

Tortured semantics? :blink:

 

Just simple facts.

 

I recall some mention that the landowner could give permission for the damage / defacement / destruction and that this did not override the guideline.

 

Unless you have an alternative interpretation?

Share this post


Link to post

The terms "damage", "deface", and "destroy" are implicitly negative, unwanted actions. If the owner of the property grants permission for the modification, surely it's no longer a negative, unwanted action, is it? Or are we really supposed to be going to property owners and asking for their explicit permission to damage, deface, or destroy their property?

I agree -- "damage" and "deface" connotes wrongfulness, i.e., without permission.

 

I disagree.

 

Smoking tobacco products harms your health - that's a fact, irrespective of any permission.

 

And, knowing this, if I choose to smoke - where's the wrongfulness? The damage meanwhile will continue, right, wrong or indifferent.

 

In the context of geocaching, damage, defacement and destruction are still damage, defacement and destruction even if the owner has given permission.

Turns out that property and lungs are not the same things. But thank you for the apples to staplers comparison.

 

It was no more apples to staplers than the claim that permission somehow magically cancels out damage, defacement or destruction.

:rolleyes:

 

As we've already heard from a reviewer on how this can actually work (in what appears to be clear English to all but one person), go ahead and light up, but please save your tortured semantics for CNN, Ms. Conway.

 

Tortured semantics? :blink:

 

Just simple facts.

 

I recall some mention that the landowner could give permission for the damage / defacement / destruction and that this did not override the guideline.

 

Unless you have an alternative interpretation?

 

I think the MORE important point is that even if you have permission, and even if you get special dispensation from GS to drill that hole, you SHOULDN'T.

 

If you drill a hole in the fence, with permission or not, the take-away message to the general caching community (not we obsessed nit-picky forum-feeders) is that there's an allowed cache over there, drilled into a fence. "I'll do that, too!"

 

Sacrifice your 'perfect hide' for the sake of the hobby.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...