Quarantine Thread

[Keystone]

The "You can't do that" thread has the possibility of serving as a positive, educational discussion about cache placements that violate a listing guideline. I agree with those who have commented in that thread about the discussion being taken off topic by complaints about the "cache police," complaints about posting images with geolocation data, etc. All of those off topic posts have been moved to this thread, along with the posts complaining about the off topic posts.

 

Going forward, off topic posts in the "You can't do that" thread will be hidden from view, and the poster will be asked to leave that discussion.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Keystone

[+on4bam]

Anybody care to follow L0ne.R around when driving and posting pictures of every traffic violation he does? You'd better be 100% poerfect if you start pointing to things like this

 

"He who lives in glass house should not throw rocks" (Confucius)

[knowschad]

Anybody care to follow L0ne.R around when driving and posting pictures of every traffic violation he does? You'd better be 100% poerfect if you start pointing to things like this

 

"He who lives in glass house should not throw rocks" (Confucius)

 

That isn't "throwing sticks", and has nothing to do with perfection. It has to do with guidelines. The OP says to not post GC#s or "out" the cache owner. I see nothing wrong with that.

[+J Grouchy]

Anybody care to follow L0ne.R around when driving and posting pictures of every traffic violation he does? You'd better be 100% poerfect if you start pointing to things like this

 

"He who lives in glass house should not throw rocks" (Confucius)

 

That isn't "throwing sticks", and has nothing to do with perfection. It has to do with guidelines. The OP says to not post GC#s or "out" the cache owner. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

No kidding. What do driving violations have to do with Groundspeak geocaching guidelines?

[+on4bam]

Correct. I'm seeing more and more guideline breakers, approximately once every 50 cache finds. Might help to illustrate and remind all of us about what is not allowed.

 

First of all, what is problematic in one part of the world doesn't have to be elsewhere. I wrote this before: "one size fits all" is not something that works globally. I see many buried caches and although against guidelines I guess most are put there and approved by the people that need to give permission (nature reserve, parks...) If it's OK with the landowner I wouldn't give a **** about the guidelines.

 

The problem I have with the TS is that this is not the way to deal with this. If you think there's a problem with a cache, contact the CO, if that fails, contact the reviewer. Not mentioning the GC code is no guarantee someone will not identify the cache and publicly name and shame the CO. Enough caches have been identified by less info than the pictures in the OP.

[+NeverSummer]

Correct. I'm seeing more and more guideline breakers, approximately once every 50 cache finds. Might help to illustrate and remind all of us about what is not allowed.

 

First of all, what is problematic in one part of the world doesn't have to be elsewhere. I wrote this before: "one size fits all" is not something that works globally. I see many buried caches and although against guidelines I guess most are put there and approved by the people that need to give permission (nature reserve, parks...) If it's OK with the landowner I wouldn't give a **** about the guidelines.

 

The problem I have with the TS is that this is not the way to deal with this. If you think there's a problem with a cache, contact the CO, if that fails, contact the reviewer. Not mentioning the GC code is no guarantee someone will not identify the cache and publicly name and shame the CO. Enough caches have been identified by less info than the pictures in the OP.

^That is what "Groundspeak Forum Moderation" is for... If there is an "outing", it goes against the OP, and the Mods can delete, edit, or reprimand if things go all SNAFU.

 

Now...back to your regularly scheduled discussion of examples of witnessed guideline violations.

[+justintim1999]

Anybody care to follow L0ne.R around when driving and posting pictures of every traffic violation he does? You'd better be 100% poerfect if you start pointing to things like this

 

"He who lives in glass house should not throw rocks" (Confucius)

 

100% perfect???? Come on. This is not a questionable container that may not be water tight or cords that are off 60 feet. This is plain horrible. Please feel free to throw rocks at me if I'm doing something wrong. Maybe I'll think twice about building another glass house.

[+on4bam]

I see many buried caches and although against guidelines I guess most are put there and approved by the people that need to give permission (nature reserve, parks...) If it's OK with the landowner I wouldn't give a **** about the guidelines.

Then this game might not be for you. The guidelines are there for a reason. Ignoring them causes problems for everyone by getting geocaching banned from areas. The buried cache guideline does not read "Geocaches are never buried, unless you have permission", it reads "Geocaches are never buried".

 

I wrote about buried caches that were approved to be buried by the landowner (or the one responsible for it). That can never get you in trouble. What if I would bury a cache in my own front yard (imaginary, as I don't have a front yard)? Are we supposted to blindly follow guidelines like lemmings without an own mind. It's not like a "guideline" is a law.

 

As for guideline-violating caches, I too am seeing an increase. I think it's due to a monkey-see, monkey-do attitude coupled with an increase in the number of people hiding caches. If we could deal with the existing violators, it would help cut down on the number of people copying the bad ideas. I'll be keeping this thread in mind as I cache and I'll take pictures of problematic caches to share here (with any identifying data like EXIF removed, of course).

 

Even then, Harry Dolphin's cache can be identified.

 

Image Date: 2012-04-15 11:14:03 (no TZ)

 

It's archived so it's one of 4 or 5 he did that day. I haven't looked at it longer than 5 minutes but might eventually find which one it is by looking at all the logs and some sat images/map.

[+L0ne.R]

1443601644[/url]' post='5540305']

1443565067[/url]' post='5540256']

1443544602[/url]' post='5540186']

I see many buried caches and although against guidelines I guess most are put there and approved by the people that need to give permission (nature reserve, parks...) If it's OK with the landowner I wouldn't give a **** about the guidelines.

Then this game might not be for you. The guidelines are there for a reason. Ignoring them causes problems for everyone by getting geocaching banned from areas. The buried cache guideline does not read "Geocaches are never buried, unless you have permission", it reads "Geocaches are never buried".

 

I wrote about buried caches that were approved to be buried by the landowner (or the one responsible for it). That can never get you in trouble. What if I would bury a cache in my own front yard (imaginary, as I don't have a front yard)? Are we supposted to blindly follow guidelines like lemmings without an own mind. It's not like a "guideline" is a law.

 

The major point of this topic is, is the cache an example of a guideline violation?

Stemming from that major point is, can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines?

(IMO following the guidelines is not harmful to the game.)

 

[xonewingx]

Yeh, I think the whole problem is people seeing problems when there are no problems and finding glee in the micromanagment of other people over these perceived problems. Guidelines by definition are NOT hard set rule of law, private land or permission should excuse a guideline where its reasonable. Often a partially buried cache is far less intrusive then a Tupperware container looking more like litter, and a nail in a tree better then a chain strangling around the whole thing. Common sense and judgement people, use it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

First of all, what is problematic in one part of the world doesn't have to be elsewhere. I wrote this before: "one size fits all" is not something that works globally. I see many buried caches and although against guidelines I guess most are put there and approved by the people that need to give permission (nature reserve, parks...) If it's OK with the landowner I wouldn't give a **** about the guidelines.

 

That attitude is incredibly shortsighted. It's not just about whether that one landowner is okay with that one cache. It's a matter of how it makes geocaching look in general. Some landowners flat out want the answer: "Are caches buried?" "Never." And that's just one example.

[+on4bam]

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

 

 

Do you see what you just did? It takes seconds to find the GC code

Seems like you lost your spots there

[+L0ne.R]

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

 

 

Do you see what you just did? It takes seconds to find the GC code

Seems like you lost your spots there

 

I found that image by doing a google search.

It still illustrates a defacement.

Edited September 30, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+Team Microdot]

Yeh, I think the whole problem is people seeing problems when there are no problems and finding glee in the micromanagment of other people over these perceived problems. Guidelines by definition are NOT hard set rule of law, private land or permission should excuse a guideline where its reasonable. Often a partially buried cache is far less intrusive then a Tupperware container looking more like litter, and a nail in a tree better then a chain strangling around the whole thing. Common sense and judgement people, use it.

 

I hope you're playing devil's advocate here.

 

The alternative is much less appealing.

[+on4bam]

I found that image by doing a google search.

It still illustrates a defacement.

 

That doesn't matter, the nail may have been there before and the CO just used an existing situation. You could easily have stripped the EXIF.

 

You wrote:

Don't out the cache owner or post GC codes

but there's no doubt about the cachecode on this one.

[+L0ne.R]

I found that image by doing a google search.

It still illustrates a defacement.

 

That doesn't matter, the nail may have been there before and the CO just used an existing situation. You could easily have stripped the EXIF.

 

I didn't realize that the image I googled had gps coordinates embedded. I will download the image, remove the exif info, find a place to put the image so I can link to it, and repost. You may want to remove the image from your posts.

 

If you do some sleuthing and find out where the photo was taken please do not "out" the coordinates, the cache owner, or the name of the cache.

Edited September 30, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+on4bam]

If you do some sleuthing and find out where the photo was taken please do not "out" the coordinates, the cache owner, or the name of the cache.

 

A 2 second search and I found where you got the picture from. It even has a nice description: "This geocache, titled "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx", has difficulty rating x and terrain rating x." The coordinates are also mentioned in the description as is the name of the author.

[+on4bam]

How about not searching? You're the one finding all this. Lone.R said not to post such things in the forum. Lone.R didn't say to try to do all in your power (and even beyond many people's technical abilities) to prevent any hidden information anywhere in the photo to be available to those who have a clue how to get to it.

 

Sorry, this is a geocaching forum, searching is the core business. "I" didn't post any identifiable info on the cache and it's hardly rocket science to find the info. All it takes is the ordinary things needed for solving mysteries. Let's say a browser + plug in. 1 click is all that's needed. It probably took less effort than trying to find guideline violations.

 

BTW. If this was a mystery it would be a D1.5 so it's hardly "all in your power" and "beyond capabilities"

[+K13]

How about not searching? You're the one finding all this. Lone.R said not to post such things in the forum. Lone.R didn't say to try to do all in your power (and even beyond many people's technical abilities) to prevent any hidden information anywhere in the photo to be available to those who have a clue how to get to it.

 

Sorry, this is a geocaching forum, searching is the core business. "I" didn't post any identifiable info on the cache and it's hardly rocket science to find the info. All it takes is the ordinary things needed for solving mysteries. Let's say a browser + plug in. 1 click is all that's needed. It probably took less effort than trying to find guideline violations.

 

BTW. If this was a mystery it would be a D1.5 so it's hardly "all in your power" and "beyond capabilities"

 

In this Geocaching Forum, the core business is discussion (and for some, confrontation?) In the game of Geocaching, the core activity is searching for caches in the outdoors.

 

It sure seems to me you have an issue with this topic. Why do you repeatedly deride the OP? Your attack-mode posting takes away from the discussion that this thread is attempting to promote.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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

 

 

Do you see what you just did? It takes seconds to find the GC code

Seems like you lost your spots there

 

Why do you insist on derailing this thread? It's not a challenge to see if you can determine the GC code from posted photos. The OP merely requested that those posting examples of caches which may violate the guidelines attempt to do so without outing the cache owner. If examining exif data to determine the location and corresponding GC code is of interest to you there's a Cool Cache container thread with dozens of pages of photos that ought to keep you entertained.

 

This thread is also not about whether or not the guidelines *should* be complied with.

 

This thread is about showing examples of caches which may violated the guidelines and perhaps suggesting an alternative method which *does* comply with the guidelines. As several have suggested it may be a useful resource for new hiders that *are* concerned about complying with the guidelines, and thus presenting this game as something played by people respectful of land managers.

[+on4bam]

 

Why do you insist on derailing this thread? It's not a challenge to see if you can determine the GC code from posted photos. The OP merely requested that those posting examples of caches which may violate the guidelines attempt to do so without outing the cache owner. If examining exif data to determine the location and corresponding GC code is of interest to you there's a Cool Cache container thread with dozens of pages of photos that ought to keep you entertained.

 

This thread is also not about whether or not the guidelines *should* be complied with.

 

This thread is about showing examples of caches which may violated the guidelines and perhaps suggesting an alternative method which *does* comply with the guidelines. As several have suggested it may be a useful resource for new hiders that *are* concerned about complying with the guidelines, and thus presenting this game as something played by people respectful of land managers.

 

1. The op requested not to identify the caches and does just that.

2. I feel it's bad practice to start a thread requesting people to post "bad examples"

3. I'm sure I could fill a few pages with pictures of guideline violations. Not only local caches but in other countries too. Should I remove all buried founds from my statistics I guess less than 50% would be left. It's not only "old" caches, even brand new caches can be buried. As I said, if the land owner has no problem with it the so be it.

 

If you look at geocaching with the eyes of someone who thinks he's going to be sued for just about anything I understand you'll try to make your rules/guidelines lawsuitproof, fortunately, at least over here, we're not there (yet) and we rely more on GBV.

[+The A-Team]

1. The op requested not to identify the caches and does just that.

No, he didn't. You chose to do some digging to attempt to identify the caches.

 

2. I feel it's bad practice to start a thread requesting people to post "bad examples"

Personally, I don't. I think it's a great idea. Hopefully some cachers will see what's posted in this thread and learn what is and isn't allowed, or what is technically allowed but can be bad for the game. BTW, there's a bad cache container thread over here. Feel free to voice your opposition to that one too.

 

3. I'm sure I could fill a few pages with pictures of guideline violations. Not only local caches but in other countries too. Should I remove all buried founds from my statistics I guess less than 50% would be left. It's not only "old" caches, even brand new caches can be buried. As I said, if the land owner has no problem with it the so be it.

It's unfortunate that the cachers in your area have such disdain for the game as a whole. It would be much better if they could follow the same guidelines and requirements as everyone else so they don't spoil it for everyone.

 

If you look at geocaching with the eyes of someone who thinks he's going to be sued for just about anything I understand you'll try to make your rules/guidelines lawsuitproof, fortunately, at least over here, we're not there (yet) and we rely more on GBV.

It has nothing to do with lawsuits. As I said in my last post, it's about perception. Are Belgian property owners generally fine with people randomly digging holes in their property? I can assure you, that isn't the case around here in Canada, so we don't want them getting the idea that caches can be buried.

[+AustinMN]

It sure seems to me you have an issue with this topic. Why do you repeatedly deride the OP? Your attack-mode posting takes away from the discussion that this thread is attempting to promote.

 

Unfortunately, this would still be a fail. It takes seconds to use Google's Image Search to find the copy that has the exif still intact. []

[+K13]

It sure seems to me you have an issue with this topic. Why do you repeatedly deride the OP? Your attack-mode posting takes away from the discussion that this thread is attempting to promote.

 

Unfortunately, this would still be a fail. It takes seconds to use Google's Image Search to find the copy that has the exif still intact. []

 

?? Did you mean to quote this post from the A-Team?

[+tomturtle]

I too don't care for this thread. The guidelines have changed over time and there are still caches out there that met guidelines when they were hidden, but maybe not now. Much better to just go out and enjoy the game and not worry about whether someone else didn't meet the letter of the law... oh wait, they are just guidelines. If a cache is really a problem, it can be dealt with on an individual basis.

[+NeverSummer]

Yeh, I think the whole problem is people seeing problems when there are no problems and finding glee in the micromanagment of other people over these perceived problems. Guidelines by definition are NOT hard set rule of law, private land or permission should excuse a guideline where its reasonable. Often a partially buried cache is far less intrusive then a Tupperware container looking more like litter, and a nail in a tree better then a chain strangling around the whole thing. Common sense and judgement people, use it.

It is attitudes like this that make Land Managers not want to collaborate with geocachers, or allow them to be hidden on their managed lands at all. Just sayin'...

[+on4bam]

But if you put up a post one day, the next day it will be an old post.... See how silly some of this nitpicking over the guidelines can get. You all would make much better use of your time if you would go out and find more caches. I for one appreciate those who go to the trouble of building an interesting cache whether they place it on an old post or a new post.

 

It seems some go out to find caches others go out to find (alleged) guideline violations.

I prefer to find caches.

[+on4bam]

Something many people don't realize is that many of the guidelines are there not primarily to prevent literal damage*, but rather to prevent a negative perception of geocaching. We don't want land managers getting the idea that some caches are buried or nailed to trees, because that gives them a good reason to ban geocaching from their land entirely.

^ THIS. That's really a big deal.

 

You can keep repeating that over and over but if there's permission from the landowner or whoever is responsible for giving permission than it's a non-issue. In nature reserves here every tag and cache is checked for minimum/no impact so when permission is given there is no negative perception.

[+Team Microdot]

But if you put up a post one day, the next day it will be an old post.... See how silly some of this nitpicking over the guidelines can get. You all would make much better use of your time if you would go out and find more caches. I for one appreciate those who go to the trouble of building an interesting cache whether they place it on an old post or a new post.

 

It seems some go out to find caches others go out to find (alleged) guideline violations.

I prefer to find caches.

 

And it seems some will turn a blind eye to anything so long as they get another smiley - while thinking that they are somehow qualified to tell those with some integrity, maturity and sense of responsibility that they are in the wrong

 

Nobody can force you to take your responsibility seriously but trying to convince others to follow your poor example is bad and you should stop.

[+on4bam]

Again it comes to the perception that things work the same elsewhere as in the US (N-America). I see no problems with landowners here (here as in Europe, or at least places I have cached in).

[+The A-Team]

Again it comes to the perception that things work the same elsewhere as in the US (N-America). I see no problems with landowners here (here as in Europe, or at least places I have cached in).

So, in your experience, European land managers never ban geocaching from their lands? I personally find that hard to believe, but maybe things really are totally different in Europe.

[knowschad]

"He who lives in glass house should not throw rocks" (Confucius)

FYI: The proverb has been traced back to Geoffrey Chaucer's 'Troilus and Criseyde' (1385). George Herbert wrote in 1651: 'Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another.' This saying is first cited in the United States in 'William & Mary College Quarterly' (1710).

 

 

And yes... your point about the guidelines being enforced selectively by country does seem to hold some truth. We've seen that many times in this forum. But... *should* that be? Should we not all be held to the same standards and requirements? If not, please explain why some groups should be treated differently.

[knowschad]

Yeh, I think the whole problem is people seeing problems when there are no problems and finding glee in the micromanagment of other people over these perceived problems. Guidelines by definition are NOT hard set rule of law, private land or permission should excuse a guideline where its reasonable. Often a partially buried cache is far less intrusive then a Tupperware container looking more like litter, and a nail in a tree better then a chain strangling around the whole thing. Common sense and judgement people, use it.

You have no finds/no hides, and yet you have some pretty strong opinions about this. Who are you, really?

 

For the most part, you can consider that "guidelines" is just a nice word for "rule". The reviewer may allow a bit of flexibility by his/her discretion, but we, as hiders, are not.

[knowschad]

On the flip side, what about all the cachers looking for the cache causing damaging by reefing branches, disturbing the ground, generally disturbing an area and leaving great footprints where they should not have been because the didn't read the cache notes properly.

What about it? Good fodder for another thread. But not this thread.

[knowschad]

I too don't care for this thread. The guidelines have changed over time and there are still caches out there that met guidelines when they were hidden, but maybe not now. Much better to just go out and enjoy the game and not worry about whether someone else didn't meet the letter of the law... oh wait, they are just guidelines. If a cache is really a problem, it can be dealt with on an individual basis.

 

The point of this thread, as I see it, and I think the OP intended, is to be educational to newcomers, not to be punitive to current cache owners.

[knowschad]

Again it comes to the perception that things work the same elsewhere as in the US (N-America). I see no problems with landowners here (here as in Europe, or at least places I have cached in).

One more time... this thread is NOT about discussing the value of this thread, and I, for one, would sure love it if you would stop trying to derail it!

[+NeverSummer]

Again it comes to the perception that things work the same elsewhere as in the US (N-America). I see no problems with landowners here (here as in Europe, or at least places I have cached in).

One more time... this thread is NOT about discussing the value of this thread, and I, for one, would sure love it if you would stop trying to derail it!

"Like"

[+briansnat]

This could have been an educational thread. There are way too many caches that violate the guidelines and other cachers encounter them and think that they are a grand idea and emulate them, thus propagating the problem.

 

I see so many examples in the Facebook forums where people have no clue about the guidelines and post obvious guideline violations and if someone mentions the guideline violation they are shouted down by people who obviously have no understanding of the guidelines.

 

It's too bad that certain people have hijacked this thread and turned it into a discussion of, or nitpicking the guidelines. I'm not a moderator here, so I'm posting as just another geocacher. Why not leave this thread to its original purpose and if you want to nitpick the guidelines, start a new one?

Edited October 3, 2015 by briansnat

[+Team Microdot]

I see so many examples in the Facebook forums where people have no clue about the guidelines and post obvious guideline violations and if someone mentions the guideline violation they are shouted down by people who obviously have no understanding of the guidelines.

 

And I see many examples of people who understand the guidelines perfectly well, but who either just don't care to abide by them or even consider themselves above them, shouting down anyone who mentiones guideline violations.

 

It's too bad that certain people have hijacked this thread and turned it into a discussion of, or nitpicking the guidelines.

 

QED.

[xonewingx]

I'm just thankful that the cache police population density out in the field is much lower then it is in the forum.

[+NeverSummer]

I'm just thankful that the cache police population density out in the field is much lower then it is in the forum.

Sadly, this opinion is part of the problem.

 

We are all, as the game was created from the beginning, "cache police".

 

Groundspeak decided to include log types such as "Needs Maintenance", "Owner Maintenance", and "Needs Archived" so that we could all work as a community to self-police our game. In the beginning this was a simple and quite smart way to assist the Reviewers, Groundspeak, and the general geocaching public to understand and abide by the guidelines in a consistent and respectful manner.

 

What we see now is an explosion of geocachers in the game with no understanding of the guidelines, other than that this is a game where you hide things to be found. Evolution is fine, whether that is a "numbers game", efforts to hide more caches in a "difficult" (D/T) manner, grid filling, or other evolution. But what isn't helpful is comments like yours, above. Sadly, many geocachers come to the game and don't have a grasp on the guidelines, or context (historical or otherwise) for why we have the guidelines that we do.

 

This game needs more cache cops. It needs more people who are willing to stick to the guidelines and report caches that do not. Groundspeak asks us to do as much, and I know that Land Managers appreciate knowing that this game can be self-regulated consistently according to the guidelines Groundspeak provides them when this game is presented as a possible use of their managed lands.

 

It is attitudes like some presented here in this thread that undermine the efforts of Groundspeak, the Reviewers, and those of us who understand the importance of perception and the guidelines as they stand today.

 

The unsubstantiated claim that "the cache police population density out in the field is much lower then [sic] it is in the forum" speaks directly to the "devolution" of the game, what with saturation of the participants with new cachers who don't understand, or don't care to understand the guidelines and adhere to them in a manner which creates an excellent, consistent, functional perception of our game.

[+Touchstone]

I'm just thankful that the cache police population density out in the field is much lower then it is in the forum.

The most ironic post in this thread

[+tomturtle]

I'm just thankful that the cache police population density out in the field is much lower then it is in the forum.

 

Agreed. There are way too many here who appear to spend more time on the forums trying to tell everyone else what to do, than they spend actually caching.