Vigilante Guideline Enforcement

[+scoutboy]

Back in March 2007 I placed a new hide that involved a container fitted into a pipe set just off a popular bike path in a urban park area. Around June a new user, Gen Santa Ana 2, appeared and began a campaign to archive my cache, “Salt Marsh” GC11P2C,

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

 

down because it violated the hiding guidelines that Geocaching.com put forward.

 

After some time of following a similar situation with the “Sage One” thread in this Forum, I formulated my opinion that in fact I had mis-interpreted the guidelines and finally reformed my cache container to strictly adhere to the guidelines.

 

This elicited several comments and discussion in the cache page logs regarding the cache and some harsh feeling towards Gen Santa Ana 2 tactics. In my case, Gen Santa Ana 2 was correct in the end, however I did not approve of the tactic used to bring this to my attention. I do not think the public logs are an appropriate forum to wage this battle.

 

Just recently Gen Santa Ana 2 struck again. This user chose to attack another local cache, Elvis Meets the Music Man GC1237Q,

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d4-e4acb67978a4

 

accusing the cache of defacing public or private property which is not allowed. Since then it seems the cache has gone missing!

 

I am curious of other experience with like tactics of Vigilante Guideline Enforcement? Is this something that is sanctioned by Goecaching.com? Is Gen Santa Ana 2 a reviewer using a pseudonym to conceal their actions? What do you think would be the appropriate action to such attacks?

 

If this continues I will get very discouraged about our sport!

[+briansnat]

s this something that is sanctioned by Goecaching.com?

 

I think most reviewers appreciate being made aware of caches that violate the guidelines.

 

Is Gen Santa Ana 2 a reviewer using a pseudonym to conceal their actions?

 

A reviewer has no need to conceal his actions. It is part of his job to archive non conforming caches.

 

What do you think would be the appropriate action to such attacks?

 

Read the guidelines and hide caches that don't violate them.

Edited August 28, 2007 by briansnat

[+scoutboy]

Is Gen Santa Ana 2 a reviewer using a pseudonym to conceal their actions?

 

A reviewer has no need to conceal his actions. It is part of his job to archive non conforming caches.

 

What do you think would be the appropriate action to such attacks?

 

Read the guidelines and hide caches that don't violate them.

 

I agree with you about we should always try to understand the guidelines and adhere to them. But if someone believes you have not received permission to place a hide when in fact you have permission and then take it upon themselve to steal the cache container to take it out of action, this seems to violate the spirit of the sport!

[+DavidMac]

Sounds like somebody with too much free time has decided to take out their gripe against geocaching on local cachers- probably somebody who had a cache turned down by a reviewer and is now hiding behind a sockpuppet account to make others' lives miserable in retaliation. My advice is: don't feed the trolls. Posting notes to cache pages just gives the individual more attention and encourages their behavior. If you ignore them, hopefully they'll get bored and move on. It doesn't always work, but it may be worth a try. If this person is posting bogus SBA logs and getting reviewers involved, email your reviewer to inform them of what's going on.

[+StarBrand]

Though I somewhat disagree with the "tactic" of hiding behind a "mask" -- at some level - don't we all have the responsibility to question caches that obviously violate the guidelines?

[+Team Cotati]

And I can tell you that "being made aware of" and actually doing something about it are very very different things. I am not at all certain that there exists the will nor interest in doing the latter.

 

However since we have clearly established that the exception does in fact make the rule....have at it.

[+Sioneva]

And I can tell you that "being made aware of" and actually doing something about it are very very different things. I am not at all certain that there exists the will nor interest in doing the latter.

 

However since we have clearly established that the exception does in fact make the rule....have at it.

 

This just reinforces my conclusion that this particular person posts either to:

 

A. display a really stupid, ugly avatar

B. tick people off

C. Both A and B

 

I'm sure the reviewers appreciated the gratitious, out of nowhere slam. And I'm sure you find my post hilarious, or whatever.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Sioneva

[JASTA 11]

Having read the postings I think that this clown has some real issues. Mental issues. I don't believe that he is any sort of Official GC.com Reviewer. I'm of the opinion that 'The General' is a sock puppet for another user. The General (or whoever he's speaking for), with his grand total of five finds, has taken it upon himself to be the local "Geo-cop". It doesn't matter that your caches were reviewed and approved, he knows how to review them better! Maybe he thinks he should be the local Reviewer.

 

There are a couple bad elements like him in my area, one of whom berated a friend of mine about some penny-ante crap so much that my friend isn't hiding caches anymore.

 

Anyone who truely appreciates this sport would find a much better way of giving constructive criticism.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I've not seen this behavior here.

 

It would be nice if he'd start by emailing the cache owner with his concerns, and then, if he feels the owner's response is inadequate, email the reviewer directly or log a Needs Archived.

 

Here he has just logged a note saying that the cache needs to be archived. The reviewer has no notification.

 

I can understand the owner assuming that he took the hide, but the owner doesn't know that - unless there's private communication off the cache page. That, removing the hide, would be theft; extremely inappropriate.

 

He's not a reviewer or representative of Groundspeak, and certainly no reviewer or Groundspeak rep would physically remove a cache.

 

If a reviewer thought the hide needed to be archived it would be, no cache page debates.

[+Team Cotati]

s this something that is sanctioned by Goecaching.com?

 

I think most reviewers appreciate being made aware of caches that violate the guidelines.

 

Is Gen Santa Ana 2 a reviewer using a pseudonym to conceal their actions?

 

A reviewer has no need to conceal his actions. It is part of his job to archive non conforming caches.

 

What do you think would be the appropriate action to such attacks?

 

Read the guidelines and hide caches that don't violate them.

 

Here: Perhaps this will make you happy.

 

And I can tell you that "being made aware of" and actually doing something about it are very very different things. I am not at all certain that there exists the will nor interest in doing the latter.

 

However since we have clearly established that the exception does in fact make the rule....have at it.

 

Did it?

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

To the OP:

 

These types of underhanded actions happen in all over the place on a regular basis. Please don't feel like you and your area are the only ones.

 

I seriously doubt that anyone even remotely connected with Groundspeak or GC.com is responsible for these happenings. From my experience reviewers have so much going on that they would never have the time for such antics. And besides, they have the power to archive as they see fit and would never resort to something like you have described which could jeopardize their reviewer status.

 

IMHO what you have is a cache cop. A local cacher who takes it upon themselves to enforce the rules of the GAME. And it would appear you have a very clever one. A sock puppet account with a few finds and an excellent understanding of the hiding guidelines.

 

Just be grateful that they aren't just removing the cache containers in question with no explanation.

 

Don't be afraid to speak up and denounce this vigilante every opportunity you get. I wouldn't enter into a discussion with them though. That will egg them on. As far as comments by your cache cop on the cache pages in question - delete them - no if, ands, or buts! Even the "Should Be Archived" ones if you can.

 

Good luck,

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+IDLookout]

 

Just recently Gen Santa Ana 2 struck again. This user chose to attack another local cache, Elvis Meets the Music Man GC1237Q,

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d4-e4acb67978a4

 

 

He actually stole the cache?

 

Nice.

[+briansnat]

And I can tell you that "being made aware of" and actually doing something about it are very very different things. I am not at all certain that there exists the will nor interest in doing the latter.

 

However since we have clearly established that the exception does in fact make the rule....have at it.

 

That's a pretty nasty and uncalled for dig at the reviewer community

Edited August 28, 2007 by briansnat

[Keystone]

And I can tell you that "being made aware of" and actually doing something about it are very very different things. I am not at all certain that there exists the will nor interest in doing the latter.

 

However since we have clearly established that the exception does in fact make the rule....have at it.

 

That's a pretty nasty dig at the reviewer community

Yes, and in so doing, it violates the "respect" guideline for posting here in the forums. The respect guideline applies to Groundspeak, its volunteers, and to other community members who post in the forums.

 

If a poster is aware of an oversight on the part of an individual reviewer, he or she can write to that reviewer, or raise the issue with Groundspeak by writing a confidential e-mail to the special e-mail address for that purpose: reviewers @ geocaching.com.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I've archived 22 caches today alone, and I need to get back to work.

[+Team Cotati]

And I can tell you that "being made aware of" and actually doing something about it are very very different things. I am not at all certain that there exists the will nor interest in doing the latter.

 

However since we have clearly established that the exception does in fact make the rule....have at it.

 

That's a pretty nasty dig at the reviewer community

Yes, and in so doing, it violates the "respect" guideline for posting here in the forums. The respect guideline applies to Groundspeak, its volunteers, and to other community members who post in the forums.

 

If a poster is aware of an oversight on the part of an individual reviewer, he or she can write to that reviewer, or raise the issue with Groundspeak by writing a confidential e-mail to the special e-mail address for that purpose: reviewers @ geocaching.com.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I've archived 22 caches today alone, and I need to get back to work.

 

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. That is no "dig" at anyone. It is an expression of direct experience. Unfortunately not all reviewers are as diligent as you seem to be.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Team Cotati

[Keystone]

I am moderating the thread, not expressing an opinion. You'd best move along to another thread.

[Luckless]

...accusing the cache of defacing public or private property which is not allowed. Since then it seems the cache has gone missing

 

The violated guideline in question would be: 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.

 

It sounds like the structure in question that was "defaced" was one that you created -therefore not public (owned by the municipality) or private property(owned by others), but your property. The biggest concern by the geocaching community as far as that goes seems to be that your property may be mistaken as public or private property and finders may assume from this find that this type of hide is an acceptable means of placement for public or private property. Getting a cache reviewer's approval and posting a notice to that effect on the cache page saying that the stucture was approved might help you avoid any confusion, (but then the cache police can make an issue out of anything). You just have to do the best you can to get along.

I was placing a cache in a local state park and the park manager offered to build a little shelf for my cache under a bench.

 

Don't know if Groundspeak has anything in writing about stealing caches, but the geocachers creed found on www.geocreed.com says: I (insert geocacher name) will protect the integrity of the game pieces- Which is their way of saying cachers shouldn't ruin the cache. I think stealing will fall under that, not that I'm accusing anyone of taking your cache, because you don't really know. If the cache police took it they'll have to haul themselves in for creed violation.

[+scoutboy]

...accusing the cache of defacing public or private property which is not allowed. Since then it seems the cache has gone missing

 

The violated guideline in question would be: 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.

 

 

In the case of the Elvis cache, extensive permission was obtained from the Mayor and the public maintenance dept. The screws that were used to attach the container to the public pavilion were even provided by the town's maintenance department. The screws were used to attach the container to a bench that is part of this pavilion.

 

I agree that if these steps were mentioned in the cache description it might have prevented this mis-understanding.

 

What kind of ramifications does this have on all the caches that are placed with less than this kind of effort to obtain permission to place caches in a public setting?

[+Machuco]

What really surprises me is that someone with the mentality to take up this hobby would want to turn it into a negative experience for so many people. If the cache placement is legal and it doesn't require breaking the law to find it, who gives a crap if the rules are twisted a bit?

[+Machuco]

After all, this is a GAME isn't it?

[+briansnat]

...If the cache placement is legal and it doesn't require breaking the law to find it, who gives a crap if the rules are twisted a bit?

 

...After all, this is a GAME isn't it?

 

Those of us who enjoy the game and wish to continue enjoying it follow the rules because they are there for a reason. The rules (aka guidelines) weren't made up out of thin air because someone was bored and looking for something to do. They have been introduced because of real concerns expressed by land managers, LEO and other officials. To ignore those concerns would jeopardize our sport. We we only get enjoy our sport through their good graces.

 

In the scheme of things does one half buried ammo box really matter? Is it really going to hurt anything? Absolutely not. But if the wrong person finds it and reports it to the wrong person, the ramifications of that one little buried ammo box could be far reaching. It was one pocket knife in a cache that resulted in a county park system wide ban and it was one buried geocache that resulted in the ban on all geocaches in national parks.

Edited August 29, 2007 by briansnat

[+LewisClan77]

I'm in Sacramento and the same thing has happened here,Gen Santa Ana 2 came through and had 3 or 4 caches archived...One of them was hidden in 2001 with over 300 finds.It was buried and I know that's not allowed but it's been there for 6 years without a problem.

[+Machuco]

...If the cache placement is legal and it doesn't require breaking the law to find it, who gives a crap if the rules are twisted a bit?

 

...After all, this is a GAME isn't it?

 

Those of us who enjoy the game and wish to continue enjoying it follow the rules because they are there for a reason. The rules (aka guidelines) weren't made up out of thin air because someone was bored and looking for something to do. They have been introduced because of real concerns expressed by land managers, LEO and other officials. To ignore those concerns would jeopardize our sport. We we only get enjoy our sport through their good graces.

 

In the scheme of things does one half buried ammo box really matter? Is it really going to hurt anything? Absolutely not. But if the wrong person finds it and reports it to the wrong person, the ramifications of that one little buried ammo box could be far reaching. It was one pocket knife in a cache that resulted in a county park system wide ban and it was one buried geocache that resulted in the ban on all geocaches in national parks.

 

Maybe that "wrong person" should focus on more positive things or find a new hobby.

[+thedeadpirate]

I'm in Sacramento and the same thing has happened here,Gen Santa Ana 2 came through and had 3 or 4 caches archived...One of them was hidden in 2001 with over 300 finds.It was buried and I know that's not allowed but it's been there for 6 years without a problem.

 

That should have been grandfathered.

[+tozainamboku]

Those of us who enjoy the game and wish to continue enjoying it follow the rules because they are there for a reason. The rules (aka guidelines) weren't made up out of thin air because someone was bored and looking for something to do. They have been introduced because of real concerns expressed by land managers, LEO and other officials. To ignore those concerns would jeopardize our sport. We we only get enjoy our sport through their good graces.

 

In the scheme of things does one half buried ammo box really matter? Is it really going to hurt anything? Absolutely not. But if the wrong person finds it and reports it to the wrong person, the ramifications of that one little buried ammo box could be far reaching. It was one pocket knife in a cache that resulted in a county park system wide ban and it was one buried geocache that resulted in the ban on all geocaches in national parks.

That attitude causes some individuals to take upon themselves to be enforcers of the guidelines and not just reporting a "Should Be Archived" because they feel some rule has been violated but maybe even moving or removing a cache on their own. The "vigilante" cache cops heard it right here that they are protecting the sport and that cachers who go out of their way to hide something cleaver and original and get permission for doing this are setting bad examples.

 

I don't mind the reviewers getting involved when a cache is reported for violating the guidelines. For the most part, reviewers will check with the cache owner to try to get an explanation - most likely that permission was granted - before archiving the cache. There are some times when a cache gets archived first and questions asked later - most likely a complaint from a property owner or land manager. I believe the reviewers understand the rationale for the guidelines, know that these are just guidelines, and in some case know that a older cache predates the guideline and has been grandfathered in.

 

I don't buy the argument that because some idiot may see a cache that seems to violate a guideline, he may copy it without permission in the "wrong" place. The guidelines are clear, though the rationale may need to be explained better to some people. There is no precedent, so if you see a cache in a park that is buried or in a hole that appears to be drill, you shouldn't copy this. Ask for permission. Maybe ask the cache owner of the existing cache who he asked for permission. If he replies that he didn't get permission or ignores you question, then it is OK to post an SBA.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I agree with you about we should always try to understand the guidelines and adhere to them. But if someone believes you have not received permission to place a hide when in fact you have permission and then take it upon themselve to steal the cache container to take it out of action, this seems to violate the spirit of the sport!

 

Some morons are quite intelligent even if unwise. There are a lot of caches that look like they break the guidelines and don't. Thats why people should shut the hell up and mind their own business unless they know for a fact that there is an issue. Then they should bring it to the attention of the cache owner.

[+Renegade Knight]

....In the case of the Elvis cache, extensive permission was obtained from the Mayor and the public maintenance dept. The screws that were used to attach the container to the public pavilion were even provided by the town's maintenance department. The screws were used to attach the container to a bench that is part of this pavilion.

 

I agree that if these steps were mentioned in the cache description it might have prevented this mis-understanding. ...

 

Why would I want to ruin a perfectly good cache description by going into boring details about the various rules, regulations, permssions, and the like that the cache has met? It's enough that I checked the box that said "I have obtained adequate permssion for this cache".

 

I have a cache at the local zoo. It's screwed into a tree. *Gasp* Oh my, Vandalism! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Like you, I had help, the zoo director helped me choose the spot, one of this maintance guys screwed it into the tree and life is good. I'm not posting that on the cache page. Instead the cache page is about a zoo cache. Not the screws.

[+Ambrosia]

...If the cache placement is legal and it doesn't require breaking the law to find it, who gives a crap if the rules are twisted a bit?

 

...After all, this is a GAME isn't it?

 

Those of us who enjoy the game and wish to continue enjoying it follow the rules because they are there for a reason. The rules (aka guidelines) weren't made up out of thin air because someone was bored and looking for something to do. They have been introduced because of real concerns expressed by land managers, LEO and other officials. To ignore those concerns would jeopardize our sport. We we only get enjoy our sport through their good graces.

 

In the scheme of things does one half buried ammo box really matter? Is it really going to hurt anything? Absolutely not. But if the wrong person finds it and reports it to the wrong person, the ramifications of that one little buried ammo box could be far reaching. It was one pocket knife in a cache that resulted in a county park system wide ban and it was one buried geocache that resulted in the ban on all geocaches in national parks.

 

Maybe that "wrong person" should focus on more positive things or find a new hobby.

Umm, sometimes that "wrong person" is the actual park official, LE, etc. That actually happens more than you would think, especially now that geocaching is becoming more widespread and well known.

[+FireRef]

Edited to remove... changed mind...

Edited August 29, 2007 by FireRef

[+briansnat]

...If the cache placement is legal and it doesn't require breaking the law to find it, who gives a crap if the rules are twisted a bit?

 

...After all, this is a GAME isn't it?

 

Those of us who enjoy the game and wish to continue enjoying it follow the rules because they are there for a reason. The rules (aka guidelines) weren't made up out of thin air because someone was bored and looking for something to do. They have been introduced because of real concerns expressed by land managers, LEO and other officials. To ignore those concerns would jeopardize our sport. We we only get enjoy our sport through their good graces.

 

In the scheme of things does one half buried ammo box really matter? Is it really going to hurt anything? Absolutely not. But if the wrong person finds it and reports it to the wrong person, the ramifications of that one little buried ammo box could be far reaching. It was one pocket knife in a cache that resulted in a county park system wide ban and it was one buried geocache that resulted in the ban on all geocaches in national parks.

 

Maybe that "wrong person" should focus on more positive things or find a new hobby.

 

The wrong person could easily be a park ranger or employee. They do go out and check on caches in some places. In my two examples above the caches were found by a park employee who reported them and that report went up the chain until it found someone with the authority to ban geocaching and who used it.

 

So go ahead, bang that nail into a tree to hang your cache, dig a hole to hide that PVC pipe, mark that park bench with your offset coordinates. What the reviewer doesn't know won't hurt him, right. Just be prepared to face your fellow geocachers and explain to them how your little twisting of the rules got geocaching banned in your town, county or state.

Edited August 29, 2007 by briansnat

[+Rockin Roddy]

Why would I want to ruin a perfectly good cache description by going into boring details about the various rules, regulations, permssions, and the like that the cache has met? It's enough that I checked the box that said "I have obtained adequate permssion for this cache".

 

So others KNOW you worked through the process and don't feel uncomfortable about the hide (and possibly report it)?? Gee, it would be tough to add a small statement saying that you did all that, wouldn't it? Probably makes the whole cache page "ugly"!

 

Just because you mark the space saying you read the guidelines DOESN'T mean you followed them!

 

wait wait wait...another good answer...so other cachers can see this and be given the thought that this is the PROPER way to hide a cache (possibly giving them the idea to follow suit)...lead by example???

Edited August 29, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+DavidMac]

Some morons are quite intelligent even if unwise. There are a lot of caches that look like they break the guidelines and don't. Thats why people should shut the hell up and mind their own business unless they know for a fact that there is an issue. Then they should bring it to the attention of the cache owner.

 

I think that's exactly the point that needs to be made in this thread. I haven't visited the caches in question, and some of the previous notes on the cache page appear to have been removed, so I'll reserve judgment about the caches and whether they violate a guideline. Well, okay, the OP admitted that there may have been an issue on one cache which ultimately came down to an interpretation of the guidelines, but it has been fixed. But that's not the reason for this discussion. The point is, there are more tactful ways to handle apparently problematic caches- hiding behind sockpuppet accounts and flaming the owner on their cache page are usually not the best way to do so.

[+briansnat]

Why would I want to ruin a perfectly good cache description by going into boring details about the various rules, regulations, permssions, and the like that the cache has met? It's enough that I checked the box that said "I have obtained adequate permssion for this cache".

 

So others KNOW you worked through the process and don't feel uncomfortable about the hide (and possibly report it)?? Gee, it would be tough to add a small statement saying that you did all that, wouldn't it? Probably makes the whole cache page "ugly"!

 

Just because you mark the space saying you read the guidelines DOESN'T mean you followed them!

 

wait wait wait...another good answer...so other cachers can see this and be given the thought that this is the PROPER way to hide a cache (possibly giving them the idea to follow suit)...lead by example???

 

That's exactly it. Even if an exception has been granted for your cache the next guy may find it, think that it's a dandy idea and copy it, not knowing that an exception was granted for your hide. It takes nothing away from a cache description to add a short sentence at the bottom like "Park officials are aware of this hide method and a guideline exception has been granted by Groundspeak". Hey it might save your cache from being swiped by an overzealous vigilante like Gen Santa Ana 2.

[JASTA 11]

Short and sweet: If this goof had an issue with the placement, why didn't he just email the owner first. Posting hate notes on the cache page and (possibly) stealing a cache is just malicious.

[+tozainamboku]

That's exactly it. Even if an exception has been granted for your cache the next guy may find it, think that it's a dandy idea and copy it, not knowing that an exception was granted for your hide. It takes nothing away from a cache description to add a short sentence at the bottom like "Park officials are aware of this hide method and a guideline exception has been granted by Groundspeak". Hey it might save your cache from being swiped by an overzealous vigilante like Gen Santa Ana 2.

A comment on the cache page that permission was granted for a certain type of hide may in some cases be a spoiler. I'd be looking for a partly buried cache if I saw this on a cache page. Instead, if someone finds a questionable cache they should first send private email to the cache owners asking if they got permission. If they are still unsatisfied with the answer, they should simpy post an SBA on the page so that a reviewer can investigate. Individuals should not be enforcing the guidelines. Park managers simply need to know that Geocaching.com has a mechanism to deal with caches that violate the guidelines. They probably have to deal with lots more vandalism and property damage from other park users than from geocachers.

 

There is no need justify vigilanteism by telling the Gen Santa Ana 2's of the would that they are doing a great job of "protecting" geocaching from a park or municipality banning caches because someone buried a cache on his own property or screwed a cache to a tree with the park rangers permission. The fact that some might copy a hide is not a reason to ban it. Even when no permission is received, I suspect that many parks which encourage geocaching would appreciate a hide that is cleaverly done even if that involved some minor alterations to park property. I don't think this justifies altering public or private property without permission - but I do get the sense that sometimes permission is granted for these kinds of hides.

[+Renegade Knight]

Why would I want to ruin a perfectly good cache description by going into boring details about the various rules, regulations, permssions, and the like that the cache has met? It's enough that I checked the box that said "I have obtained adequate permssion for this cache".

 

So others KNOW you worked through the process and don't feel uncomfortable about the hide...

 

When I checked the two boxes required to list a cache I said all of that and more.

 

The real problem is that some feel that checking those boxes that affirm that I have adequate permission is not enough. They want me to check the box. Then state on the cache page that yes I feel wonderful about this cache placment. That I have permission, that the apparent vandalism is not what it looks like and so on.

 

The other problem is that when people fail to notify the person actually responsible for the cache. That's the owner. Not this site. This site handles listings.

[+Renegade Knight]

...That's exactly it. Even if an exception has been granted for your cache the next guy may find it, think that it's a dandy idea and copy it, not knowing that an exception was granted for your hide. It takes nothing away from a cache description to add a short sentence at the bottom like "Park officials are aware of this hide method and a guideline exception has been granted by Groundspeak". Hey it might save your cache from being swiped by an overzealous vigilante like Gen Santa Ana 2.

 

It does take away from my hide description to clutter it up with a bunch of extra crap that doesn't need to be there. Much like in your world the cache environment is cluttered up with a bunch of extra crap that make it more work than you would like to find the few caches that interest you.

 

We both do this for fun. When you have to sort, sift, filter you have said it's less fun than the days of old. In my case I don't mind all that, but I do mind having to say "I got permission for the hide, I got permission for screwing it into the tree (a spoiler), I got permission to use a birdhouse that looks similar to the other bird houses and may cause peole to look in the wrong one, and I got permission for being off path" For me that's all just red tape and it's no fun. I'd rather tell some earnie eagle beak to bugger off than clutter up my cache page with feel good phrases that help them feel better about life and seeking my cache. Actually if they need all that I can live without their seeking my cache at all. Now if they email me and ask nicely what's up, that's another thing and I'd rather deal with that as well than post all that crud in my cache page.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Just because you mark the space saying you read the guidelines DOESN'T mean you followed them!...

 

And posting it on the cache page that I followed them doesn't mean I really did either.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Why would I want to ruin a perfectly good cache description by going into boring details about the various rules, regulations, permssions, and the like that the cache has met? It's enough that I checked the box that said "I have obtained adequate permssion for this cache".

 

So others KNOW you worked through the process and don't feel uncomfortable about the hide (and possibly report it)?? Gee, it would be tough to add a small statement saying that you did all that, wouldn't it? Probably makes the whole cache page "ugly"!

 

Just because you mark the space saying you read the guidelines DOESN'T mean you followed them!

 

wait wait wait...another good answer...so other cachers can see this and be given the thought that this is the PROPER way to hide a cache (possibly giving them the idea to follow suit)...lead by example???

 

That's exactly it. Even if an exception has been granted for your cache the next guy may find it, think that it's a dandy idea and copy it, not knowing that an exception was granted for your hide. It takes nothing away from a cache description to add a short sentence at the bottom like "Park officials are aware of this hide method and a guideline exception has been granted by Groundspeak". Hey it might save your cache from being swiped by an overzealous vigilante like Gen Santa Ana 2.

 

Maybe modifying the found it note in the cache and making very clear who gave permission for the cache and who to contact in case of a problem is a better idea than cluttering up the cache page. Anyone who has these kinds of issues with someone elses cache placement is more than likely going to have to find it first right?

 

Also, I always enjoy finding additional information in caches about the area or how the cache came to be. It's kind of like being completely in on the secret.

[+Jhwk]

Well, This explains a little. *** Post # 82, in case you are wondering***

 

nothing like sock puppets to make you even more legitimate...

 

member since April, 5 finds, none since June, hmmm

 

sounds like the cache police to me

 

carp, their on to meeeeeeeeee.................

 

edit to add post #

Edited August 29, 2007 by Jhwk

[+Mudfrog]

....In the case of the Elvis cache, extensive permission was obtained from the Mayor and the public maintenance dept. The screws that were used to attach the container to the public pavilion were even provided by the town's maintenance department. The screws were used to attach the container to a bench that is part of this pavilion.

 

I agree that if these steps were mentioned in the cache description it might have prevented this mis-understanding. ...

 

Why would I want to ruin a perfectly good cache description by going into boring details about the various rules, regulations, permssions, and the like that the cache has met? It's enough that I checked the box that said "I have obtained adequate permssion for this cache".

 

I have a cache at the local zoo. It's screwed into a tree. *Gasp* Oh my, Vandalism! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Like you, I had help, the zoo director helped me choose the spot, one of this maintance guys screwed it into the tree and life is good. I'm not posting that on the cache page. Instead the cache page is about a zoo cache. Not the screws.

 

To me, this is about the same thing as posting parking coordinates in the description. It's something that should be left up to the cache owner.

 

Someone who checks the "i have adequate permission, i followed the guidelines box" but knowlingly hid the cache by not following them would certainly have no problem lying in the cache description about getting that permission anyway.

 

This is a simple and straightforward matter that us as cachers can handle without causing any grief. We can email the cache owner if we think there is a problem with a cache. If we get no response from the owner, then we can take it farther by posting an SBA and/or emailing the reviewer.

[+briansnat]

A comment on the cache page that permission was granted for a certain type of hide may in some cases be a spoiler. I'd be looking for a partly buried cache if I saw this on a cache page.

 

There is no need to be specific. A waiver of the guidelines could mean nearly anything including a buried cache, one on private property, a hole drilled in a fence, graffiti and countless other things.

 

Instead, if someone finds a questionable cache they should first send private email to the cache owners asking if they got permission. If they are still unsatisfied with the answer, they should simpy post an SBA on the page so that a reviewer can investigate.

 

For someone who is familiar with the guidelines that works. But for someone who isn't it may encourage him to copy it. There is a lot of monkey see, monkey do in this sport.

 

And posting it on the cache page that I followed them doesn't mean I really did either.

 

The checkbox when you submit a cache isn't worth the pixels used. I bet more than 3/4 of the people who submit a cache don't read them and just check the box.

 

A note on the page at least tells me that the cache owner is aware of the guideline and claims he has a waiver. Sure he could be lying, but at least I know that he is familiar with the guidelines and chances are good that he has taken steps to make sure his cache is in compliance.

 

If I see a cache behind a no trespassing sign, I leave. If however the cache owner mentions on the page that it is his property, then I will assume that he is being truthful and go for it. Yeah I'm taking a chance in trusting a total stranger. If I'm wrong and bitten by it, it's nobody's fault but mine (but you can be certain I will report that cache to a reviewer).

 

As an owner a simple note on the page makes sense if only to make things easier for me. I'd rather not have to deal with SBA logs or cache vigilantes stealing my container. More important, I don't want some noob copying my hide in the nearby state park where sticking screws into trees might not go over so well.

Edited August 29, 2007 by briansnat

[+Jhwk]

Only one question...

 

How do I create a sock puppet?

 

I want to run around and anonymously thank folks for supporting my hide and seek fantasies.

[+scoutboy]

FYI - Since this thread is moving a bit off topic, both the Salt Marsh and the Elvis caches referred to in the OP have been purged of the vigilante attack logs to clean them up for future happyness. So they no longer contain the history trail that explains this thread origination.

 

I am disappointed to hear the Gen Santa Ana 2 has struck in the Sacramento area as well!

 

Can't we just get along! Let's go geocaching!

[+tozainamboku]

Instead, if someone finds a questionable cache they should first send private email to the cache owners asking if they got permission. If they are still unsatisfied with the answer, they should simpy post an SBA on the page so that a reviewer can investigate.

 

For someone who is familiar with the guidelines that works. But for someone who isn't it may encourage him to copy it. There is a lot of monkey see, monkey do in this sport.

I think the rationale the "someone may copy it therefore there should be no exceptions to the guidelines" is a bad policy. You might as well just list the "approved" hiding techniques and limit caches to using one of the those because anything that hasn't been pre-approved by all land managers might end up being copied somewhere and getting Geocaching banned. Don't be creative and ask permission because someone will copy this and get geocaching banned. And by the way, Gen Santa Ana 2, keep up the good work of reporting the creative hiders because creativity results in Geocaching being banned.

Edited August 29, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+Team GeoBlast]

Well, This explains a little. *** Post # 82, in case you are wondering***

 

nothing like sock puppets to make you even more legitimate...

 

member since April, 5 finds, none since June, hmmm

 

sounds like the cache police to me

 

carp, their on to meeeeeeeeee.................

 

edit to add post #

 

I view using a sock puppet for an SBA as spineless. If you are logging an SBA, it should be for valid reasons. You should also be prepared for the expected fallout from those who put their numbers above the games integrity.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Anyone who has these kinds of issues with someone elses cache placement is more than likely going to have to find it first right?...

 

Total Wag but for every valid SBA/NM log I see, I see about 3 that aren't.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Well, This explains a little. *** Post # 82, in case you are wondering***

 

nothing like sock puppets to make you even more legitimate...

 

member since April, 5 finds, none since June, hmmm

 

sounds like the cache police to me

 

carp, their on to meeeeeeeeee.................

 

edit to add post #

 

I view using a sock puppet for an SBA as spineless. If you are logging an SBA, it should be for valid reasons. You should also be prepared for the expected fallout from those who put their numbers above the games integrity.

 

I have to wonder why the account in question hasn't been banned and locked. I thought sock puppets weren't allowed in the forums and post by this particular person make it pretty clear that they are one.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

And I can tell you that "being made aware of" and actually doing something about it are very very different things. I am not at all certain that there exists the will nor interest in doing the latter.

 

However since we have clearly established that the exception does in fact make the rule....have at it.

 

That's a pretty nasty dig at the reviewer community

Yes, and in so doing, it violates the "respect" guideline for posting here in the forums. The respect guideline applies to Groundspeak, its volunteers, and to other community members who post in the forums.

 

If a poster is aware of an oversight on the part of an individual reviewer, he or she can write to that reviewer, or raise the issue with Groundspeak by writing a confidential e-mail to the special e-mail address for that purpose: reviewers @ geocaching.com.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I've archived 22 caches today alone, and I need to get back to work.

 

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. That is no "dig" at anyone. It is an expression of direct experience. Unfortunately not all reviewers are as diligent as you seem to be.

 

I am moderating the thread, not expressing an opinion. You'd best move along to another thread.

 

I don't see how that is a 'dig' at anyone. Seems he was expressing his opinion. That's still allowed, right?

 

From personal experience I've only had to communicate with a reviewer once regarding a caches placement. I voiced my concerns and they took what steps they deemed appropriate. On the other hand I've seen cases where I believe they've overstepped things by being too rigorous on certain cache hides . That's there prerogative of course as is mine to express my opinion on the subject.

[+Renegade Knight]

In my area we have a prolific cache maggot. They steal caches and otherwise get a lot of enjoyment out of messing with us cachers. From where I stand that's a lot more honest work than a cache vigulante.