The cache is part of the trash.

[+Walt Jabsco]

Why should anyone expect the outside of the cache to look any different than the contents on the inside? Most cache "swag" is indistinguishable from what is found in any trash anyway. Might as well just give the coordinates to trash cans, and call it caches. Lately I've been trying to keep my one cache hide stocked with "real" stuff that hikers might like(compasses, pedometers, binoculars, etc) only to watch it degenerate within a few finds. How is a beer can filled with junk, any different than a tupperware container filled with junk?

[+scuba dude]

If you feel that way, then it's probably time for you to stop geocaching and move on.

[+PhxChem]

So it's OK if the general population think of geocachers as trash leaving, garbage strewing people?

 

Why would they think this? Is the general public regularly stumbling upon caches disguised as trash? I'm a cacher, and I haven't found one.

 

And what's so natural about an ammo can in the woods? Oh, look at the beautiful Tupperware plant!!

 

In geocaching you want your cache to blend into the surroundings for numerous reasons. I really don't understand the moral objection, or the real difference, between an ammo can stashed in a forest and a cache that's disguised as trash...

 

Not everyone will like every type of cache. Seems to be a recurring theme on the boards.

 

How is a beer can filled with junk, any different than a tupperware container filled with junk?

 

Apparently, Tupperware is real purdy!!

Edited January 1, 2008 by PhxChem

[+benh57]

Caches disguised as trash are moronic. It's not clever or creative. It's "been done".

The main reason i hate them is that you are forcing your searchers to search in all the trash in the area. Does that sound fun to you?

Would you really want to search through someone's garbage? That's what you are forcing your finders to do when you disguise your cache as trash.

[Mushtang]

Caches disguised as trash are moronic. It's not clever or creative. It's "been done".

I agree! No more caches that have already been done. Ammo cans and tupperware containers under piles of sticks in the woods is moronic. Only original hides from now on!!!

 

The main reason i hate them is that you are forcing your searchers to search in all the trash in the area.

I hate it when someone forces me to find caches. This should be a volunteer hobby, not one that you're forced to participate in.

 

Does that sound fun to you?

Would you really want to search through someone's garbage? That's what you are forcing your finders to do when you disguise your cache as trash.

If only we weren't forced to find caches that we didn't like. Let's start a new kind of cache that you could drive up to, look at, decide you didn't want to do it, and move along. That way we're not forced to look through garbage, and can get on to the exciting new caches we'll surely see now that they're all going to be original.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

So the next time someone says that geocachers are good landstewards and most CITO wherever they go, will they need an asterisk?

 

* except when the cache is suppose to look like trash...

 

Exactly.

 

You place your cache and you CITO your chances.

 

Is it Art? No.

 

I assume the Duece means "take your CITO chances". There's a trash cache in my area. I've not seen anyone who "liked it", it gets trashed in the find logs regularly, pun intended. Me, I stopped by, but didn't really look for it too hard, and won't be back. I do believe it discourages people to CITO the area. It's along a rails to trails.

[+BlueDeuce]

In geocaching you want your cache to blend into the surroundings for numerous reasons. I really don't understand the moral objection, or the real difference, between an ammo can stashed in a forest and a cache that's disguised as trash...

 

The ammocan is typically hidden from sight, it isn't an added eyesore.

[rogheff]

You Cache Police are amazing. Everyone seems to have an opinion and think that everyone elses opinion is wrong.

 

Aren't ALL geocaches trash? If I take an ammo can out into the woods and leave it, have I not just littered regardless of how well I hid the can?

 

If I seek out a cache, find an ammo can in the woods, tinker with the can, and leave it there, haven't I also littered by association?

 

Any cache is a good cache. If YOU don't like certain cache types than YOU go hide more caches.

 

You aren't GeoGod so quit judging other people's caches.

[+joranda]

So it's OK if the general population think of geocachers as trash leaving, garbage strewing people?

 

Why would they think this? Is the general public regularly stumbling upon caches disguised as trash? I'm a cacher, and I haven't found one.

 

And what's so natural about an ammo can in the woods? Oh, look at the beautiful Tupperware plant!!

 

In geocaching you want your cache to blend into the surroundings for numerous reasons. I really don't understand the moral objection, or the real difference, between an ammo can stashed in a forest and a cache that's disguised as trash...

 

Not everyone will like every type of cache. Seems to be a recurring theme on the boards.

 

How is a beer can filled with junk, any different than a tupperware container filled with junk?

 

Apparently, Tupperware is real purdy!!

 

All I can say is, "Well done!" I don't think I could of said it better.

[+joranda]

You Cache Police are amazing. Everyone seems to have an opinion and think that everyone elses opinion is wrong.

 

Aren't ALL geocaches trash? If I take an ammo can out into the woods and leave it, have I not just littered regardless of how well I hid the can?

 

If I seek out a cache, find an ammo can in the woods, tinker with the can, and leave it there, haven't I also littered by association?

 

Any cache is a good cache. If YOU don't like certain cache types than YOU go hide more caches.

 

You aren't GeoGod so quit judging other people's caches.

 

Right on! Now let's do what this hobby was intented for, get out and find a cache or two.

[+Kit Fox]

You Cache Police are amazing. Everyone seems to have an opinion and think that everyone elses opinion is wrong.

 

Aren't ALL geocaches trash? If I take an ammo can out into the woods and leave it, have I not just littered regardless of how well I hid the can?

 

If I seek out a cache, find an ammo can in the woods, tinker with the can, and leave it there, haven't I also littered by association?

 

Any cache is a good cache. If YOU don't like certain cache types than YOU go hide more caches.

 

You aren't GeoGod so quit judging other people's caches.

 

Considering that you sell a used soda can cache for 15 dollars, I can see how you might be tad biased on the topic.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+PhxChem]

The ammocan is typically hidden from sight, it isn't an added eyesore.

 

It is when I find it! That's why I usually throw them in the trash after signing the log. CITO you know..........

 

If a cache is hidden among other trash...how is it an ADDED eyesore exactly?

 

Does that sound fun to you?

 

Apparently, it does to a good number of people. But not to you. Just like some people don't like micros.....but we shouldn't ban them......

 

And stop with the "it's already been done" argument. If we use that criterion, we wouldn't have many caches left.......

 

Caches placed in containers.....that's SO been done.........

[+geomann1]

I'm sure we can find the fine line, but when it comes to caches hidden in trash in trash ridden areas I just don't care for it. That's all.

 

I agree, to me its not so much an issue of a cache being mistaken for trash and disposed of, but rather it is just not fun for me to pick through trash and inspect every beer can and cigarette butt.

 

I think these kinds of caches just degrade the sport. It is certainly desirable to try to maintain a little class in the sport.

[+KBI]

I'm sure we can find the fine line, but when it comes to caches hidden in trash in trash ridden areas I just don't care for it. That's all.

I agree, to me its not so much an issue of a cache being mistaken for trash and disposed of, but rather it is just not fun for me to pick through trash and inspect every beer can and cigarette butt.

I understand and appreciate your preference, but I don’t always share that preference. Caches camouflaged as trash have just as much potential to entertain me as any other hide. It all depends on how it’s done. Sometimes I don’t even care how artistically a cache is designed – I’m just happy to have something to find. Those who don’t share my preference are of course welcome to ignore any caches they don’t care for.

 

I think these kinds of caches just degrade the sport. It is certainly desirable to try to maintain a little class in the sport.

Again, I see where you’re coming from, but that’s a bit like saying “I prefer fine dining; therefore I think the mere existence of McDonald’s is degrading to this entire town. It is certainly desirable to try to maintain a little class in our restaurant choices.”

 

How exactly do trash-disguised caches degrade the sport? Does it degrade you when cacher A hides a cache inside a beer can and cacher B has a good time finding it? Some people might even say that the high unexpectedness factor of a cache actually adds to the coolness of the experience.

 

I have found a couple of these trash-camo hides, geomann1. Trust me; those caches didn’t affect my opinion of you, my opinion of the hider, or my opinion of the sport in general. I think most folks, even newbies, understand intuitively that the geocaching menu is both deep and wide, and that there is something in this sport to attract – or deter – just about anyone.

 

Exercise wisely your power of choice. You prefer not to pick through litter for a cache; I prefer not to have to don scuba gear. What's the difference? Both types are messy. Both types are avoidable. Neither type is degrading. It’s all a matter of personal preference and what you enjoy.

[+BlueDeuce]

Exercise wisely your power of choice. You prefer not to pick through litter for a cache; I prefer not to have to don scuba gear. What's the difference? Both types are messy. Both types are avoidable. Neither type is degrading. It’s all a matter of personal preference and what you enjoy.

 

I do think there is a difference between trash caching and suba diving. If I had my choice I would rather not see trash. One of the reasons why we hold events is just to get rid of it.

 

Now before someone else confuses my opinion with me thinking everyone who disagrees with me is just wrong; I can appreciate a cache that blends into the 'natural' environment. I’ve seen some pretty clever hides, but given a choice I would rather not have to dig through trash to find it. In fact I’ll probably be pretty annoyed. Hope that’s okay.

[Mr.Yuck]

Exercise wisely your power of choice. You prefer not to pick through litter for a cache; I prefer not to have to don scuba gear. What's the difference? Both types are messy. Both types are avoidable. Neither type is degrading. It’s all a matter of personal preference and what you enjoy.

 

I do think there is a difference between trash caching and suba diving. If I had my choice I would rather not see trash. One of the reasons why we hold events is just to get rid of it.

 

Now before someone else confuses my opinion with me thinking everyone who disagrees with me is just wrong; I can appreciate a cache that blends into the 'natural' environment. I’ve seen some pretty clever hides, but given a choice I would rather not have to dig through trash to find it. In fact I’ll probably be pretty annoyed. Hope that’s okay.

 

Naw, that's just the typical hysterical "they're all out to get me" type response. Sounds to me like the former Soda can trash cache salesman thinks that his opinion is right, and everyone else is wrong.

 

Seriously people, there is no threat to your "anything anyone throws anywhere and calls a cache" world, just people expressing their opinions from behind a keyboard. No need for name calling (Geo-police), and hysterical statements.

 

But this thread has convinced me there isn't anything anyone can toss anywhere and call a cache, and there will be no shortage of people in here defending it. Dog feces on a street corner with a scrap of paper stuck in it? If it feels good, do it.

Edited January 2, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+KBI]

Exercise wisely your power of choice. You prefer not to pick through litter for a cache; I prefer not to have to don scuba gear. What's the difference? Both types are messy. Both types are avoidable. Neither type is degrading. It’s all a matter of personal preference and what you enjoy.

I do think there is a difference between trash caching and scuba diving.

I was referring to the difference in personal preference, and to the fact that there is no reason for anyone to feel degraded by either.

 

Of course there are differences between the two cache types. Lots of them.

 

Scuba caches require training, expensive equipment, lots of time, etc.

 

Fake-trash caches only require someone with low aesthetic standards who is easily entertained; someone who, possibly due to a mental defect, enjoys certain caches even though they're not supposed to enjoy them because it’s more trendy to despise them.

 

Someone like me, for example.

 

If I had my choice I would rather not see trash. One of the reasons why we hold events is just to get rid of it.

I do not support, promote or defend trash. What I support, promote and defend is the existence of any guideline-compliant cache which might provide entertainment for somebody.

 

If I had my choice I would rather not see trash either. If you and I were working together at a CITO event, one which resulted in the removal of a cache-disguised-as-trash, I would stand beside you in defending the removal of the cache and explaining to the cache owner that he must accept the consequences of his risky cache-design choice.

 

Now before someone else confuses my opinion with me thinking everyone who disagrees with me is just wrong; I can appreciate a cache that blends into the 'natural' environment. I’ve seen some pretty clever hides, but given a choice I would rather not have to dig through trash to find it. In fact I’ll probably be pretty annoyed. Hope that’s okay.

Works for me! Very reasonable. Why wouldn’t that be okay?

 

As I said before: I would never hide such a cache myself, and for the very reasons you describe. That doesn't mean I think nobody else should enjoy hiding or finding them however, and it also doesn’t prevent me, under the right circumstances, from being able to enjoy finding one myself.

 

Hope that’s okay.

[+KBI]

Sounds to me like the former Soda can trash cache salesman thinks that his opinion is right, and everyone else is wrong.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... insult the person who posted the statement! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

Nobody in this thread has questioned the validity of anyone’s personal caching preference. Quite the opposite, in fact. If I am wrong, please post a quote or a link and correct me.

 

Seriously people, there is no threat to your "anything anyone throws anywhere and calls a cache" world, just people expressing their opinions from behind a keyboard. No need for name calling (Geo-police), and hysterical statements.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... imply that the person who posted the statement is against the expression of opinions! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

Nobody in this thread has challenged anyone’s right to their opinion. Quite the opposite, in fact. If I am wrong, please post a quote or a link and correct me.

 

But this thread has convinced me there isn't anything anyone can toss anywhere and call a cache, and there will be no shortage of people in here defending it. Dog feces on a street corner with a scrap of paper stuck in it? If it feels good, do it.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... argue against a fictitious one! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

I've carefully read back over the thread and I haven't seen anyone promoting the cartoonish cache you describe. If I missed it, can you please post a quote or a link?

[+BlueDeuce]

 

As I said before: I would never hide such a cache myself, and for the very reasons you describe. That doesn't mean I think nobody else should enjoy hiding or finding them however, and it also doesn’t prevent me, under the right circumstances, from being able to enjoy finding one myself.

 

Hope that’s okay.

 

Cool. (My 'Hope that's okay' was referring to an earlier post and was not directed at you)

 

I do have to say that I would prefer that people not enjoy trash caching.

 

Hope that's okay.

 

 

 

edit: extra word

Edited January 2, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[Mr.Yuck]

Sounds to me like the former Soda can trash cache salesman thinks that his opinion is right, and everyone else is wrong.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... insult the person who posted the statement! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

Nobody in this thread has questioned the validity of anyone’s personal caching preference. Quite the opposite, in fact. If I am wrong, please post a quote or a link and correct me.

 

Seriously people, there is no threat to your "anything anyone throws anywhere and calls a cache" world, just people expressing their opinions from behind a keyboard. No need for name calling (Geo-police), and hysterical statements.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... imply that the person who posted the statement is against the expression of opinions! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

Nobody in this thread has challenged anyone’s right to their opinion. Quite the opposite, in fact. If I am wrong, please post a quote or a link and correct me.

 

But this thread has convinced me there isn't anything anyone can toss anywhere and call a cache, and there will be no shortage of people in here defending it. Dog feces on a street corner with a scrap of paper stuck in it? If it feels good, do it.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... argue against a fictitious one! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

I've carefully read back over the thread and I haven't seen anyone promoting the cartoonish cache you describe. If I missed it, can you please post a quote or a link?

 

Edited January 2, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Texsox]

If you come from a background of lifting dust covers from WalMart light poles, a beer can isn't that strange. If you enjoy long hikes in the woods, that same beer can is strange. It seems ironic to me that one group could be out gathering beer cans from one site and another group could be taking those beer cans and sending them to another. In my mind, despite being clever, great camouflage, etc. I couldn't take a beer can and toss it out in a park. I suspect most anti-littering laws would agree.

 

The argument I have a hard time objecting to is the "all cache is trash". Like pornography, a definition is elusive, but we know it when we see it.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Texsox

[+KBI]

Sounds to me like the former Soda can trash cache salesman thinks that his opinion is right, and everyone else is wrong.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... insult the person who posted the statement! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

Nobody in this thread has questioned the validity of anyone’s personal caching preference. Quite the opposite, in fact. If I am wrong, please post a quote or a link and correct me.

 

Seriously people, there is no threat to your "anything anyone throws anywhere and calls a cache" world, just people expressing their opinions from behind a keyboard. No need for name calling (Geo-police), and hysterical statements.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... imply that the person who posted the statement is against the expression of opinions! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

Nobody in this thread has challenged anyone’s right to their opinion. Quite the opposite, in fact. If I am wrong, please post a quote or a link and correct me.

 

But this thread has convinced me there isn't anything anyone can toss anywhere and call a cache, and there will be no shortage of people in here defending it. Dog feces on a street corner with a scrap of paper stuck in it? If it feels good, do it.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... argue against a fictitious one! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

I've carefully read back over the thread and I haven't seen anyone promoting the cartoonish cache you describe. If I missed it, can you please post a quote or a link?

 

Blah, blah, blah. What more have I come to expect? As soon as you and your brother realize that no one is theatened by anyone here expressing their opinions, perhaps you two can find another hobby. The current hobby being running in here to defend anything anyone tosses anywhere and calls a cache. Don't expect a response, you're really not worth the energy of moving my fingers across the keyboard.

I’ll take that as a: "Sorry, KBI, but I guess I can't actually produce any of the quotes you requested which might support my previous post."

 

I get it, TWU. I get that you not only have a different caching preference than me, but that you also believe your preference is superior to mine. No need to remind me; you've made that quite clear in the past.

 

I sure wish you would read what I write instead of hearing only what you want to hear.

 

[EDIT: I misspelled TWU's initials. D'oh.]

Edited January 2, 2008 by KBI

[+KBI]

In my mind, despite being clever, great camouflage, etc. I couldn't take a beer can and toss it out in a park.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

[Mr.Yuck]

Sounds to me like the former Soda can trash cache salesman thinks that his opinion is right, and everyone else is wrong.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... insult the person who posted the statement! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

Nobody in this thread has questioned the validity of anyone’s personal caching preference. Quite the opposite, in fact. If I am wrong, please post a quote or a link and correct me.

 

Seriously people, there is no threat to your "anything anyone throws anywhere and calls a cache" world, just people expressing their opinions from behind a keyboard. No need for name calling (Geo-police), and hysterical statements.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... imply that the person who posted the statement is against the expression of opinions! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

Nobody in this thread has challenged anyone’s right to their opinion. Quite the opposite, in fact. If I am wrong, please post a quote or a link and correct me.

 

But this thread has convinced me there isn't anything anyone can toss anywhere and call a cache, and there will be no shortage of people in here defending it. Dog feces on a street corner with a scrap of paper stuck in it? If it feels good, do it.

When you find yourself unable to argue against a statement with which you disagree ... argue against a fictitious one! You won't convince anybody of anything, but you'll feel better.

 

I've carefully read back over the thread and I haven't seen anyone promoting the cartoonish cache you describe. If I missed it, can you please post a quote or a link?

 

Blah, blah, blah. What more have I come to expect? As soon as you and your brother realize that no one is theatened by anyone here expressing their opinions, perhaps you two can find another hobby. The current hobby being running in here to defend anything anyone tosses anywhere and calls a cache. Don't expect a response, you're really not worth the energy of moving my fingers across the keyboard.

I’ll take that as a: "Sorry, KBI, but I guess I can't actually produce any of the quotes you requested which might support my previous post."

 

I get it, TWE. I get that you not only have a different caching preference than me, but that you also believe your preference is superior to mine. No need to remind me; you've made that quite clear in the past.

 

I sure wish you would read what I write instead of hearing only what you want to hear.

 

Here's an unexpected response. Dude, you are absolutely, 100% impossible to talk to. I give up. You really sit there in front of a computer, and consider what you're doing here "debating"? It's the same rhetoric, over and over; "who said that"? "Provide a link", "40 posts back, you said this" etc, etc.. No one can can type one sentence in a thread you're involved in, without you putting words in their mouth, and demanding a link to the words you put in their mouth.

 

By the way, you have a linky to me saying my caching preferences are superior to yours?

[+KBI]

Dude, you are absolutely, 100% impossible to talk to. I give up. You really sit there in front of a computer, and consider what you're doing here "debating"? It's the same rhetoric, over and over; "who said that"? "Provide a link", "40 posts back, you said this" etc, etc..

If you are unwilling or unable to defend and support your own questionable statements, then whose fault is that? Why get upset at me about it?

 

Do you really think it makes you sound fair and reasonable when you demand to be allowed to criticize and disparage other people’s posts without having to suffer the inconvenience of being challenged in return?

 

No one can can type one sentence in a thread you're involved in, without you putting words in their mouth, and demanding a link to the words you put in their mouth.

If I have misinterpreted anything you’ve said, feel free to correct me. It is not my intent to put words in your mouth. I have no desire to waste your time or mine arguing against a non-existent position, so please clarify whatever it is you feel I have misunderstood.

 

In an earlier post you claimed that I think my opinion is right, and everyone else is wrong. You also implied that I wish to defend "dog feces on a street corner" caches. I denied your claims, and further invited you to prove me wrong by supporting your claims.

 

If that invitation somehow offended you, I apologize. I meant no offense, as I’m sure you meant no offense with your dog-feces comments.

 

By the way, you have a linky to me saying my caching preferences are superior to yours?

You mean other than these?

But this thread has convinced me there isn't anything anyone can toss anywhere and call a cache, and there will be no shortage of people in here defending it. Dog feces on a street corner with a scrap of paper stuck in it? If it feels good, do it.

As soon as you and your brother realize that no one is theatened by anyone here expressing their opinions, perhaps you two can find another hobby. The current hobby being running in here to defend anything anyone tosses anywhere and calls a cache. Don't expect a response, you're really not worth the energy of moving my fingers across the keyboard.

In your words, the caches I enjoy are "anything anyone can toss anywhere" and "dog feces on a street corner with a scrap of paper stuck in it." I never used those phrases; you did. You’re clearly ridiculing the types of caches I sometimes enjoy finding.

 

The obvious implication is that you feel your individual caching preference is superior to mine.

 

If my conclusion is incorrect then please tell me exactly what you DID mean to say – that is, if my request in asking you to clarify your position and correct my misunderstanding is not offensive to you.

[+Walt Jabsco]

The argument I have a hard time objecting to is the "all cache is trash". Like pornography, a definition is elusive, but we know it when we see it.

 

That's easy. An old tupperware container with a sandwich bag in it lying on the ground is trash. An old tupperware container with a mini notebook in the sandwich bag and filled with broken McToys isn't

[Mr.Yuck]

I will go to PM, rather then turn this into the TWU and KBI show.

[+KBI]

The argument I have a hard time objecting to is the "all cache is trash". Like pornography, a definition is elusive, but we know it when we see it.

That's easy. An old tupperware container with a sandwich bag in it lying on the ground is trash. An old tupperware container with a mini notebook in the sandwich bag and filled with broken McToys isn't

Walt makes a good point: Trash is in the eye of the beholder.

 

To some muggles ALL caches are trash; to other muggles they are unexpected, strange and fascinating artifacts worthy of further investigation.

 

To some geocachers all caches are trash unless they meet some individual minimum-required aesthetic or level of acceptable entertainment to which they believe they are entitled. As for other geocachers, they believe pretty much any guideline-compliant cache might be worthy of investigation, because they know that even though all caches aren’t great, EVERY unfound cache holds the promise of potential unexpected entertainment and adventure.

 

Put me in the second group. I love unexpectedly fun hides, therefore I prefer to check 'em ALL out, time permitting – but keep in mind these are the words of a raving, mentally defective wack who doesn’t know any better, doesn’t know when he’s supposed to be properly disgusted.

[Mushtang]

To some muggles ALL caches are trash

What? This can't be.

 

You mean

 

1] There are some people out there with the opinion that no geocaches should be hidden anywhere?

 

2] There are some people with the opinion that only some of the existing geocaches should have been hidden?

 

And 3] there are some people with the opinion that all guideline meeting caches are going to be entertaining to somebody, therefore they're able to live with them all?

 

KBI, what makes the opinion of someone from any of these groups more correct than members of the other two groups?

[+Texsox]

I think I found a definition I like.

 

If a muggle will steal it, it is good. If a muggle will throw it away, it is bad.

 

Today I was at a local bird sanctuary, part of the World Birding Headquarters. As we neared the spot I noticed a bird feeder right in the vacinity. The old Reeses commercial played in my head . . .

 

You got a feeder near my cache

You got your cache near my feeder

Ten minutes later I discovered the feeder was the cache

And by I, I mean the lovely lady I was with

Edited January 2, 2008 by Texsox

[+KBI]

To some muggles ALL caches are trash

What? This can't be.

 

You mean

 

1] There are some people out there with the opinion that no geocaches should be hidden anywhere?

 

2] There are some people with the opinion that only some of the existing geocaches should have been hidden?

 

And 3] there are some people with the opinion that all guideline meeting caches are going to be entertaining to somebody, therefore they're able to live with them all?

 

KBI, what makes the opinion of someone from any of these groups more correct than members of the other two groups?

Exactly!

 

Here is another way to put the question:

 

If the people in the third group are to be expected to do the polite thing and modify their behavior out of respect for the preferences of the people in the second group, then shouldn’t the people in both the second AND third groups do the very same out of respect for the preferences of the first group?

 

In other words: We don’t want to offend the aesthetics of those who think ALL caches are trash, do we? Let’s do the only courteous thing, roll this game up and shut it down!

[+PhxChem]

If you enjoy long hikes in the woods, that same beer can is strange

 

I can't like both? That's not true........

 

But based on your further comments about throwing cans in parks, I think you misunderstand what we're talking about.

 

If a muggle will steal it, it is good. If a muggle will throw it away, it is bad.

 

Close. But there are plenty of exceptions.

 

Today I was at a local bird sanctuary, part of the World Birding Headquarters. As we neared the spot I noticed a bird feeder right in the vacinity.

 

I don't know many muggles who would want to steal a bird feeder. Just not the hot ticket item. Does that mean that the bird feeder cache was a bad one?

Edited January 2, 2008 by PhxChem

[+Texsox]

^^^^

Like I posted earlier, they are tough to define, but we know it when we see it.

 

Perhaps I am missing the point. It seems this can cache is meant to be left out in the open mixed in with the other trash, not hidden in any way. I thought instead of cleaning up that park, the cache owner was adding another can that will blend in. I thought they were finishing up a drink at home, then taking the can and building a cache and adding it to other cans somewhere. Now that I typed that, I realize I must be wrong.

 

I wonder if this was a park in your neighborhood if you would be advocating leaving the trash so it remains a great geocaching park, or cleaning it up?

 

I thought the bird feeder was a good hide. Seed was glued to the outside to look real.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Texsox

[+KBI]

I thought instead of cleaning up that park, the cache owner was adding another can that will blend in. I thought they were finishing up a drink at home, then taking the can and building a cache and adding it to other cans somewhere. Now that I typed that, I realize I must be wrong.

 

I wonder if this was a park in your neighborhood if you would be advocating leaving the trash so it remains a great geocaching park, or cleaning it up?

Just curious: Which park are you referring to? Is the trash camo-ed cache in this park you're talking about an actual, existing (or archived) hide?

[+Stargazer22]

I have found a couple of caches that were 'Trash-O-Flaged".

One was found on an afternoon of caching following a CITO earlier that day.

We had continued our CITO and were picking up trash at all the caches we visited in the afternoon.

Once I found the cache, which was disguised as a piece of trash, I was a little bit disappointed that I felt that I couldn't continue the CITO in that area. Had I picked up the rest of the trash there, the cache would have stood out like a sore thumb and had no other local 'camoflage' like it to hide in.

The hider is one of the better hiders in our area and I thoroughly enjoy and respect his caches, even this one.

So while I thought the cache was entertaining, cleverly hidden, and well maintained, I was still a little disappointed in coming to the conclusion that I did. That you need to leave the trash in the area as it is, or the cache has no place to hide. By the way, this place was almost identical to the area we had done for our CITO earlier in the day so it would have been a great area for a CITO. But out of respect for the hider and future finders, I left the trash in that area on that day. I felt kind of torn between my feelings to CITO and my feelings to respect the cache and finders.

Finding this cache made me feel a little like a litterbug and part of the problem. Especially when I was standing right there with a trash bag in my hands and I didn't pick up any of the trash.

I enjoyed finding the cache, but didn't enjoy the feeling that I had to leave trash behind, too.

[+mr mojo risin]

Sounds kind of germy to me.

[+Texsox]

I thought instead of cleaning up that park, the cache owner was adding another can that will blend in. I thought they were finishing up a drink at home, then taking the can and building a cache and adding it to other cans somewhere. Now that I typed that, I realize I must be wrong.

 

I wonder if this was a park in your neighborhood if you would be advocating leaving the trash so it remains a great geocaching park, or cleaning it up?

Just curious: Which park are you referring to? Is the trash camo-ed cache in this park you're talking about an actual, existing (or archived) hide?

 

The original post stated it was on a scenic drive in an area with illegal dumping. The cache was a bison tube placed in a distinctive beer can. Later, others brought into the discussion parks. I was trying to stay in general, rather then any one specific. Sorry if I was misleading. I made an assumption, based on the can being "distinctive" that it was carried into the site, not found there. My appologies if that was not the case, but I'm not certain if it makes that big of a difference.

 

But other than dumps, most people would agree that areas with no beer cans on the ground would be better than areas with beer cans on the ground.

 

So subtracting a beer can makes the area better, adding beer cans makes the area worse. Admittedly by small degrees.

 

I understand that it is "just one can" and if it was the only can being added to our nation's roadside trash, that would be cool. But I ask you, if we are only adding one more can, do we really want that one can coming from this sport? Perhaps it is mostly symbolic, but it's a symbol that many people here seem to embrace.

 

I run a youth camp that is adjacent to a public area. Each week we fill a couple trash bags of trash from the shoreline. I could not imagine advocating we leave those there and add a beer can cache. I do not want to spend my leisure time poking around garbage. But I guess if enough people do, they are free to do that and that is the direction the sport will go.

 

But overall, there is much to do about one cache. We've successfully inflated a mole hill into a mountain.

[+Renegade Knight]

...But out of respect for the hider and future finders, I left the trash in that area on that day. I felt kind of torn between my feelings to CITO and my feelings to respect the cache and finders. ...

 

You should never feel guilty about picking up litter. It's always a good thing to do. A small triump in the world. If by chance that means the only remaining blight in the area is a cache that USED to be well hidden using urban camo then a simple note on the cache page saying as much will clue the owner in that the caches circumstances have changed for the worse because the areas circumstances have changed for the better.

 

Reverse it. You are free to pick up litter and the cache owner is free to hide using urban camo. Since you are both free to do these things, both of you are right. However neither of you are free of the consequences of your actions. You may be guilty of being recognized as a good citizen. They may lose a cache since CITO is a risk they took.

[+KBI]

I thought instead of cleaning up that park, the cache owner was adding another can that will blend in. I thought they were finishing up a drink at home, then taking the can and building a cache and adding it to other cans somewhere. Now that I typed that, I realize I must be wrong.

 

I wonder if this was a park in your neighborhood if you would be advocating leaving the trash so it remains a great geocaching park, or cleaning it up?

Just curious: Which park are you referring to? Is the trash camo-ed cache in this park you're talking about an actual, existing (or archived) hide?

The original post stated it was on a scenic drive in an area with illegal dumping. The cache was a bison tube placed in a distinctive beer can. Later, others brought into the discussion parks. I was trying to stay in general, rather then any one specific. Sorry if I was misleading. I made an assumption, based on the can being "distinctive" that it was carried into the site, not found there. My appologies if that was not the case, but I'm not certain if it makes that big of a difference.

There IS a difference. As far as I know nobody is advocating the planting of fake trash in a park, a nice forest, someone's yard, or any other attractive area. There seems to be a consensus that adding trash to any location is a bad thing, and I tend to agree.

 

The discussion seems to be whether it is okay to use existing trash as cache camouflage in an area that is already trashed up.

 

Several folks in this thread have tried to make this about something else, something fictitious and irrelevant. It’s called a Strawman fallacy, and it happens when someone argues against a non-existent position. That’s why I asked for clarification in case I’d missed something, but as far as I know nobody has proposed, supported or defended the trashing of non-trashy areas, the abandonment of good CITO practices, or the creation of caches which employ warm steaming piles of dog poop as camouflage.

 

But other than dumps, most people would agree that areas with no beer cans on the ground would be better than areas with beer cans on the ground.

You can include me in there with those "most people."

 

So subtracting a beer can makes the area better, adding beer cans makes the area worse. Admittedly by small degrees.

 

I understand that it is "just one can" and if it was the only can being added to our nation's roadside trash, that would be cool. But I ask you, if we are only adding one more can, do we really want that one can coming from this sport? Perhaps it is mostly symbolic, but it's a symbol that many people here seem to embrace.

 

I run a youth camp that is adjacent to a public area. Each week we fill a couple trash bags of trash from the shoreline. I could not imagine advocating we leave those there and add a beer can cache. I do not want to spend my leisure time poking around garbage. But I guess if enough people do, they are free to do that and that is the direction the sport will go.

These are the types of arguments that are beginning to make me re-think my original position. The rampant expansion of the fake-trash cache idea seems to be a fictitious and hypothetical problem, but any effort to keep it that way can’t be a bad thing. I still say such caches can be fun under the right circumstances and in the right context, but I really have no good response at the moment to this statement of yours:

I understand that it is "just one can" and if it was the only can being added to our nation's roadside trash, that would be cool. But I ask you, if we are only adding one more can, do we really want that one can coming from this sport? Perhaps it is mostly symbolic, but it's a symbol that many people here seem to embrace.

Again, I don’t see cachers spreading fake trash as a mushrooming problem, but I’d sure like to see it stay that way.

 

The use of existing trash is something I can defend in certain cases. If the owner is willing to risk his cache being Hoovered up with the rest of the garbage, that’s his choice. The introduction, however, of new trash to a location – any location – is not something I think I can support. That definitely sets a bad example.

[+KBI]

...But out of respect for the hider and future finders, I left the trash in that area on that day. I felt kind of torn between my feelings to CITO and my feelings to respect the cache and finders. ...

You should never feel guilty about picking up litter. It's always a good thing to do. A small triump in the world. If by chance that means the only remaining blight in the area is a cache that USED to be well hidden using urban camo then a simple note on the cache page saying as much will clue the owner in that the caches circumstances have changed for the worse because the areas circumstances have changed for the better.

 

Reverse it. You are free to pick up litter and the cache owner is free to hide using urban camo. Since you are both free to do these things, both of you are right. However neither of you are free of the consequences of your actions. You may be guilty of being recognized as a good citizen. They may lose a cache since CITO is a risk they took.

Beautiful. I couldn't have said it better.

[+GeoScooter1]

Well, my original post sure do start a bunch of interesting discussions.

 

I certainly do understand that some people may not be concerned or bothered about caches of this type, but I wonder how many have found caches that bothered them due to trash, location, or whatever and just either walked away or got the smiley and left a "TNLNSL" and the cache owner has no idea the cache might be a problem. In the case of my post on the beer can cache, I did email the owner privately and thanked him for placing caches, but did question why he would add more litter to the pile. However, on his next cache that gave every indication that it was in a debris pile of concrete, rocks, old tires and god knows what else, I left a note on the cache page and said I didn't look for the cache because I refused to look in that mess. I was informed that it is viewed as a "hiding opportunity". Maybe others will now voice a concern since I left a note, maybe not.

 

Besides the cache being what I consider as "litter", I also was a little astounded that a person would place a series of caches along a "beautiful, scenic trail" and then take me to an illegal dumping site and have a cache in a beer can. There were so many other place a cache could have been placed in the area that weren't trashy.

If we hadn't found the cache accidentally, it probably would have ended up in the trash bag we had with us and we would have just left a note saying we don't hunt for caches in trashy areas. Once we found it, I felt obligated to leave it, but I don't know I would do that the next time I found cache as trash.

[+egami]

Yeah, interesting thread...

 

Imo, caches are maintained and I don't care what the cache looks like, trash is a good decoy and if they are willing to run the risk so be it.

 

Conversely, if a cache goes MIA due to CITO efforts be them deliberate geocaching CITO, or run of the mill good citizen effort, then I have no qualms.

 

Would be funny, ironic if the DNF logger inadvertantly trashed the cache.

[+Kit Fox]

Would be funny, ironic if the DNF logger inadvertantly trashed the cache.

 

This happened to a local cache. The log was hidden inside of a used and empty fire extinguisher.

 

Here is the great log!

[+Texsox]

I thought instead of cleaning up that park, the cache owner was adding another can that will blend in. I thought they were finishing up a drink at home, then taking the can and building a cache and adding it to other cans somewhere. Now that I typed that, I realize I must be wrong.

 

I wonder if this was a park in your neighborhood if you would be advocating leaving the trash so it remains a great geocaching park, or cleaning it up?

Just curious: Which park are you referring to? Is the trash camo-ed cache in this park you're talking about an actual, existing (or archived) hide?

The original post stated it was on a scenic drive in an area with illegal dumping. The cache was a bison tube placed in a distinctive beer can. Later, others brought into the discussion parks. I was trying to stay in general, rather then any one specific. Sorry if I was misleading. I made an assumption, based on the can being "distinctive" that it was carried into the site, not found there. My appologies if that was not the case, but I'm not certain if it makes that big of a difference.

There IS a difference. As far as I know nobody is advocating the planting of fake trash in a park, a nice forest, someone's yard, or any other attractive area. There seems to be a consensus that adding trash to any location is a bad thing, and I tend to agree.

 

The discussion seems to be whether it is okay to use existing trash as cache camouflage in an area that is already trashed up.

 

Several folks in this thread have tried to make this about something else, something fictitious and irrelevant. It’s called a Strawman fallacy, and it happens when someone argues against a non-existent position. That’s why I asked for clarification in case I’d missed something, but as far as I know nobody has proposed, supported or defended the trashing of non-trashy areas, the abandonment of good CITO practices, or the creation of caches which employ warm steaming piles of dog poop as camouflage.

 

But other than dumps, most people would agree that areas with no beer cans on the ground would be better than areas with beer cans on the ground.

You can include me in there with those "most people."

 

So subtracting a beer can makes the area better, adding beer cans makes the area worse. Admittedly by small degrees.

 

I understand that it is "just one can" and if it was the only can being added to our nation's roadside trash, that would be cool. But I ask you, if we are only adding one more can, do we really want that one can coming from this sport? Perhaps it is mostly symbolic, but it's a symbol that many people here seem to embrace.

 

I run a youth camp that is adjacent to a public area. Each week we fill a couple trash bags of trash from the shoreline. I could not imagine advocating we leave those there and add a beer can cache. I do not want to spend my leisure time poking around garbage. But I guess if enough people do, they are free to do that and that is the direction the sport will go.

These are the types of arguments that are beginning to make me re-think my original position. The rampant expansion of the fake-trash cache idea seems to be a fictitious and hypothetical problem, but any effort to keep it that way can’t be a bad thing. I still say such caches can be fun under the right circumstances and in the right context, but I really have no good response at the moment to this statement of yours:

I understand that it is "just one can" and if it was the only can being added to our nation's roadside trash, that would be cool. But I ask you, if we are only adding one more can, do we really want that one can coming from this sport? Perhaps it is mostly symbolic, but it's a symbol that many people here seem to embrace.

Again, I don’t see cachers spreading fake trash as a mushrooming problem, but I’d sure like to see it stay that way.

 

The use of existing trash is something I can defend in certain cases. If the owner is willing to risk his cache being Hoovered up with the rest of the garbage, that’s his choice. The introduction, however, of new trash to a location – any location – is not something I think I can support. That definitely sets a bad example.

 

I basically agree with what you wrote.

[+Too Tall John]

As far as I know nobody is advocating the planting of fake trash in a park, a nice forest, someone's yard, or any other attractive area.

Since this whole thread was started because someone planted fake trash, I have to disagree. As has been pointed out many times before, my idea of a "nice area" and your idea of one is completely subjective, so trying to say they aren't advocating the placement of such caches in your above listed locations won't work.

There seems to be a consensus that adding trash to any location is a bad thing, and I tend to agree.

 

The discussion seems to be whether it is okay to use existing trash as cache camouflage in an area that is already trashed up.

Most of the examples of caches hidden in/with/as trash listed here have not specified that they were using trash already existing in the area, in fact in the case of the crushed can cache for sale, we can safely assume that for $15 it comes with the can attached to the Lock'n'Lock. I'd say your suggestion that we are discussing the "use (of) existing trash as cache camouflage in an area that is already trashed up" is incorrect.

Several folks in this thread have tried to make this about something else, something fictitious and irrelevant. It’s called a Strawman fallacy, and it happens when someone argues against a non-existent position.

I await your explanation of which part of what I've said is a straw man.

That’s why I asked for clarification in case I’d missed something, but as far as I know nobody has proposed, supported or defended the trashing of non-trashy areas, the abandonment of good CITO practices, or the creation of caches which employ warm steaming piles of dog poop as camouflage.

• Nobody has proposed, supported or defended the trashing of non-trashy areas. Sounds like you're building your own straw man, arguing against a position nobody's taking. Huh...
  
• The abandonment of good CITO practices. Cache In, Trash Out? Leaving trash at a location, even to camouflage the cache, goes against the whole second half of the title. C'mon now!
  
• The creation of caches which employ warm steaming piles of dog poop as camouflage. The suggestion you keep referring to here was meant to be funny, as far as I can see. It's called irony.
  

[+KBI]

As far as I know nobody is advocating the planting of fake trash in a park, a nice forest, someone's yard, or any other attractive area.

Since this whole thread was started because someone planted fake trash, I have to disagree. As has been pointed out many times before, my idea of a "nice area" and your idea of one is completely subjective, so trying to say they aren't advocating the placement of such caches in your above listed locations won't work.

You’ll notice I qualified my above statement with the words "as far as I know." I suppose that allows for your implied suggestion that somewhere, someone's subjective definition might theoretically consider an already trash-strewn vacant lot to be a "nice area." One man's trash is another man's flower garden, as you correctly point out.

 

What I mostly meant by that preface is that while such a deed may have been advocated, I haven’t heard of it. If you can find where someone has, please post a link.

 

I have made my position on that particular detail very clear, and I doubt you and I have a very different definition of "nice area." I haven’t yet seen where anyone has advocated the trashing-up of a non-trashy area.

 

Since you brought it up: What is your position on the matter?

 

There seems to be a consensus that adding trash to any location is a bad thing, and I tend to agree.

 

The discussion seems to be whether it is okay to use existing trash as cache camouflage in an area that is already trashed up.

Most of the examples of caches hidden in/with/as trash listed here have not specified that they were using trash already existing in the area, in fact in the case of the crushed can cache for sale, we can safely assume that for $15 it comes with the can attached to the Lock'n'Lock. I'd say your suggestion that we are discussing the "use (of) existing trash as cache camouflage in an area that is already trashed up" is incorrect.

Conceded.

 

I can’t argue with that; I see your point.

 

Since you brought it up: Do you think it really makes any difference whether a fake-trash cache in an already trashy area is camouflaged using imported material instead of existing trash? I wouldn't feel right adding to the trash pile myself, but then of course, as I have previously explained, I have no interest in hiding fake-trash caches in the first place.

 

Several folks in this thread have tried to make this about something else, something fictitious and irrelevant. It’s called a Strawman fallacy, and it happens when someone argues against a non-existent position.

I await your explanation of which part of what I've said is a straw man.

Before I can explain which of your statements you've said is a strawman I must first accuse you of committing a strawman, which I have not done.

Edited January 3, 2008 by KBI

[+KBI]

That’s why I asked for clarification in case I’d missed something, but as far as I know nobody has proposed, supported or defended the trashing of non-trashy areas, the abandonment of good CITO practices, or the creation of caches which employ warm steaming piles of dog poop as camouflage.

Nobody has proposed, supported or defended the trashing of non-trashy areas. Sounds like you're building your own straw man, arguing against a position nobody's taking. Huh...

Texsox made a couple posts in which he responded as if someone had supported the trashing of non-trashy areas. For example:

In my mind, despite being clever, great camouflage, etc. I couldn't take a beer can and toss it out in a park. I suspect most anti-littering laws would agree.

As far as I know, nobody has advocated taking a beer can and tossing it out in a park.

 

In the part you quoted I was explaining that what he mistakenly thought was being proposed had not actually been proposed – to my understanding, at least. Again, you can correct me if that understanding is wrong.

 

I wasn't arguing against a non-existent position. I was dismissing it.

 

How is that "building my own straw man?"

 

The abandonment of good CITO practices. Cache In, Trash Out? Leaving trash at a location, even to camouflage the cache, goes against the whole second half of the title. C'mon now!

As you may recall, many posters in this thread have correctly pointed out that a fake-trash cache is not trash; it is a geocache disguised to look like trash.

 

As you prepare to parse out that last statement and split hairs, keep in mind that other posters have also pointed out that any geocache can be described as trash, depending on one’s point of view. What would you have thought if you’d found a piece of gladware in the woods back before you’d ever heard of Geocaching? Is it not reasonable to assume that any muggle is capable of mistaking any geocache as trash, especially if they are completely unaware of the game? Based on such a subjective interpretation (remember "subjective?") wouldn't that potentially require ALL caches to be removed under some folks' definition of "Trash Out?"

 

A fake-trash cache is not trash any more than a fake-birdhouse cache is a birdhouse. C'mon now!

 

The creation of caches which employ warm steaming piles of dog poop as camouflage. The suggestion you keep referring to here was meant to be funny, as far as I can see. It's called irony.

I don’t think it was meant as a mere joke. I think TWU intended to ridicule my statements by equating the caches being defended by me and others in this thread with something hypothetical and ridiculous. It wasn’t ironic. At the very least it was an irrelevant exaggeration of my position – or more technically speaking, a Slippery Slope fallacy.

[+Too Tall John]

As far as I know nobody is advocating the planting of fake trash in a park, a nice forest, someone's yard, or any other attractive area.

Since this whole thread was started because someone planted fake trash, I have to disagree. As has been pointed out many times before, my idea of a "nice area" and your idea of one is completely subjective, so trying to say they aren't advocating the placement of such caches in your above listed locations won't work.

You’ll notice I qualified my above statement with the words "as far as I know." I suppose that allows for your implied suggestion that somewhere, someone's subjective definition might theoretically consider an already trash-strewn vacant lot to be a "nice area." One man's trash is another man's flower garden, as you correctly point out.

People are, however, advocating the placement of fake trash. Since we agree that the concept of a "nice area" is completely subjective, we can agree that to say "Nobody is advocating the planting of fake trash in a park, a nice forest, someone's yard, or any other attractive area," isn't necessarily so. If the following restatement of your thoughts on this is a clearer definition of what you meant, I take much less issue with it:

I haven’t yet seen where anyone has advocated the trashing-up of a non-trashy area.

 

Since you brought it up: What is your position on the matter?

I must admit, I am a bit torn.

 

Overall, I think "traches" (apologies for using a term that has been used to put other types of caches down, but in this thread, the word works to cover the definition of the caches being discussed) are a bad idea as they are designed to look like litter. As the guidelines say: For all physical caches and waypoints, think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. If it looks like trash to a muggle, it is trash to a muggle. If they find out that that trash is a geocache, they are more likely to associate geocaches with trash.

 

On the other hand, I think a geocache that utilizes such camouflage can be clever and in the right location, appropriate. The conditions necessary to make it clever and appropriate vs. nasty and just wrong are as yet undefined for me, one of the reasons for my interest in this thread.

 

Right now, I am leaning more toward "It's a bad idea!"

There seems to be a consensus that adding trash to any location is a bad thing, and I tend to agree.

 

The discussion seems to be whether it is okay to use existing trash as cache camouflage in an area that is already trashed up.

Most of the examples of caches hidden in/with/as trash listed here have not specified that they were using trash already existing in the area, in fact in the case of the crushed can cache for sale, we can safely assume that for $15 it comes with the can attached to the Lock'n'Lock. I'd say your suggestion that we are discussing the "use (of) existing trash as cache camouflage in an area that is already trashed up" is incorrect.

Conceded.

 

I can’t argue with that; I see your point.

 

Since you brought it up: Do you think it really makes any difference whether a fake-trash cache in an already trashy area is camouflaged using imported material instead of existing trash? I wouldn't feel right adding to the trash pile myself, but then of course, as I have previously explained, I have no interest in hiding fake-trash caches in the first place.

I think we are on the same page here. As implied in the highlighted statement above, I think we both think there is a difference between the two.

Several folks in this thread have tried to make this about something else, something fictitious and irrelevant. It’s called a Strawman fallacy, and it happens when someone argues against a non-existent position.

I await your explanation of which part of what I've said is a straw man.

Before I can explain which of your statements you've said is a strawman I must first accuse you of committing a strawman, which I have not done.

I apologize for accusing you of doing such. Forum participants in other discussions have tried this tactic to obfuscate the issue, and I was having a knee-jerk pre-action. Edited January 3, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+egami]

Would be funny, ironic if the DNF logger inadvertantly trashed the cache.

 

This happened to a local cache. The log was hidden inside of a used and empty fire extinguisher.

 

Here is the great log!

 

Haha, thanks for the link...good read.

[+Too Tall John]

That’s why I asked for clarification in case I’d missed something, but as far as I know nobody has proposed, supported or defended the trashing of non-trashy areas, the abandonment of good CITO practices, or the creation of caches which employ warm steaming piles of dog poop as camouflage.

Nobody has proposed, supported or defended the trashing of non-trashy areas. Sounds like you're building your own straw man, arguing against a position nobody's taking. Huh...

Texsox made a couple posts in which he responded as if someone had supported the trashing of non-trashy areas. For example:

In my mind, despite being clever, great camouflage, etc. I couldn't take a beer can and toss it out in a park. I suspect most anti-littering laws would agree.

As far as I know, nobody has advocated taking a beer can and tossing it out in a park.

 

In the part you quoted I was explaining that what he mistakenly thought was being proposed had not actually been proposed – to my understanding, at least. Again, you can correct me if that understanding is wrong.

 

I wasn't arguing against a non-existent position. I was dismissing it.

 

How is that "building my own straw man?"

While not "tossed in a park," the cache in question from the OP is exactly what Texsox is talking about. I took their post as standing against caches disguised as trash. It did not register with me that you were referring to their post, as I read their position as being against the type of hide in general, while you were making a more specific argument.

The abandonment of good CITO practices. Cache In, Trash Out? Leaving trash at a location, even to camouflage the cache, goes against the whole second half of the title. C'mon now!

As you may recall, many posters in this thread have correctly pointed out that a fake-trash cache is not trash; it is a geocache disguised to look like trash.

As the guidelines say: For all physical caches and waypoints, think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. If it looks like trash to the public, it is trash to the public.

As you prepare to parse out that last statement and split hairs, keep in mind that other posters have also pointed out that any geocache can be described as trash, depending on one’s point of view. What would you have thought if you’d found a piece of gladware in the woods back before you’d ever heard of Geocaching? Is it not reasonable to assume that any muggle is capable of mistaking any geocache as trash, especially if they are completely unaware of the game? Based on such a subjective interpretation (remember "subjective?") wouldn't that potentially require ALL caches to be removed under some folks' definition of "Trash Out?"

 

A fake-trash cache is not trash any more than a fake-birdhouse cache is a birdhouse. C'mon now!

The important difference is that the public will react favorably to a birdhouse, be it a real or a fake one, while they will react negatively to trash, be it trash or cache.

The creation of caches which employ warm steaming piles of dog poop as camouflage. The suggestion you keep referring to here was meant to be funny, as far as I can see. It's called irony.

I don’t think it was meant as a mere joke. I think TWU intended to ridicule my statements by equating the caches being defended by me and others in this thread with something hypothetical and ridiculous. It wasn’t ironic. At the very least it was an irrelevant exaggeration of my position – or more technically speaking, a Slippery Slope fallacy.

I think my real issue with the usage of this position is that almost everyone knows that the concept of making a cache out of "warm steaming piles of dog poop" is utterly ridiculous. Nobody's arguing the point but you. Do I hear a horse laughing?