Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: What would YOU do ...

  1. #1
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    Hypothetical question.

    What would YOU do if you can across a geocache that didn't meet the HCC guidelines on HCC property (say it was in a bin bag or in a hole)?

    Elm'r B)

  2. #2
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 2 2003, 11:29 AM
    Hypothetical question.

    What would YOU do if you can across a geocache that didn't meet the HCC guidelines on HCC property (say it was in a bin bag or in a hole)?

    Elm'r B)
    Given that, at the moment, we need to be "cleaner than clean", then I would probably take some form of "positive action".

    So, if it were possible to easily remedy the situation (eg remove the bag, and be happy, at least for a few weeks, that the box wouldn't leak) without messing up the cache - could be bit of a bummer if the box is bright yellow! - I would do so. Maybe you could move the cache slightly if it were "in the wrong place".

    Failing that, I would remove it.

    In any case, I would then send a pleasant and polite message to the cache owner explaining what I have done and why, trying where possible to give positive advice so that the cache could be re-placed again.

    Of course, I would place a carefully worded message on the cache page so that others would not be looking for the moved / removed cache.

    If the placer were a beginner at the sport, maybe I would suggest meeting up & help them find another suitable spot for it.


    Paul

  3. #3
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    If I were a newcomer to the game, and weren't aware of the HCC guidelines, I would be grateful for Paul's support.

    I speak from experience - my first cache was very badly placed, and after a few carefully chosen words from fellow cachers, I moved it to a more suitable location. I welcomed the advice.

    As time progresses, do we become more arrogant about our "rights" as cachers? I think so. If you read the General forums on GC.com, you'll see it all the time. A more experienced cacher might be hurt that their expertise had been called into question. Heck, they might even be angry.

    If a cache is a significant problem - the plastic bag scenario, for instance, or placed in a way to disrupt surrounding wildlife - then I would remove it, regardless of the placers response.

    If not, I would probably simply contact the cacher and say I think there is a problem with it, and tell them why, and under what authority (ie, the HCC suggests X) I speak from.

  4. #4
    The Hornet Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 2 2003, 11:39 AM

    Failing that, I would remove it.

    Paul, I think if you started doing that you are setting a dangerous precedent. You are a sensible sort of chap and I'm sure you would only remove a cache if you genuinely thought it was VERY wrong. But what about another, less sensible geocacher. Maybe he/she has a strong feeling for one of the Hampshire guidelines that at the moment is routinely ignored. I'm talking about the one that says you musn't leave a visible trail in the undergrowth when hunting for a cache.

    He/she goes out on a geocaching expedition and because the nettles are high at the moment he/she sees lots of trails and removes lots of caches. Silly? Maybe, but all they are doing is putting their own interpretation on one of the guidelines. Also remember, we are talking about GUIDELINES not RULES.

    No, a better approach is to leave it as you found it but contact the cache owner and point out to them the preceived problem. I'm pretty sure a polite approach like this will prompt some quick "maintenance".

    I know what my reaction would be if people started arbitrarily removing caches of mine!

  5. #5
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by The Hornet+Aug 2 2003, 07:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Hornet @ Aug 2 2003, 07:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Aug 2 2003, 11:39 AM

    Failing that, I would remove it.

    You are a sensible sort of chap and I&#39;m sure you would only remove a cache if you genuinely thought it was VERY wrong. [/b][/quote]
    Indeed yes.

    As you say, it would depend on HOW wrong the cache was: many "slightly bad" problems would be fixed by a slight re-placement of the cache.

    When Michael & I went of to place "Virtually a cache", we had decided roughly where to place it. Before it found its current location, we went for a walk down a public path, but which was very clearly on private land (a country estate). It was a lovely location, but for many reasons NOT the place for a cache.... and it is THAT sort of occasion when you might think about removing the cache it were placed there.


    Paul

  6. #6
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 2 2003, 08:44 PM

    When Michael & I went of to place "Virtually a cache", we had decided roughly where to place it. Before it found its current location, we went for a walk down a public path, but which was very clearly on private land (a country estate). It was a lovely location, but for many reasons NOT the place for a cache.... and it is THAT sort of occasion when you might think about removing the cache it were placed there.
    Blimey Paul, your going to be busy. All land in the UK is owned by someone and so is private. That&#39;s a lot of caches to collect&#33;

    Light hearted joke Paul so please don&#39;t take offence.

    Kev

  7. #7
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Icenians+Aug 2 2003, 08:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Icenians @ Aug 2 2003, 08:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Aug 2 2003, 08:44 PM

    When Michael & I went of to place "Virtually a cache", we had decided roughly where to place it. Before it found its current location, we went for a walk down a public path, but which was very clearly on private land (a country estate). It was a lovely location, but for many reasons NOT the place for a cache.... and it is THAT sort of occasion when you might think about removing the cache it were placed there.
    Blimey Paul, your going to be busy. All land in the UK is owned by someone and so is private. That&#39;s a lot of caches to collect&#33;

    Light hearted joke Paul so please don&#39;t take offence.

    Kev [/b][/quote]
    In the case I described it was more than "just on private land" (which often describes a path along a field)... this was a path through a country estate, partly just in some (lightly wooded) woods, at times close to other houses on the estate.

    So, you DID start to feel that this WAS a bit more "private" than many of those other bits of private land... in addition, the path was very clear, there WERE fences around, and where there were tracks etc there were pleasant yet clear "private property" signs.

    If you ever get down to Winchester, go to where the "virtually a cache" is.... then look on the map a hundred metres to the west, where there is a (private) bridge over the M3.... the public path goes over that bridge, through some big front gates, and into the estate. It&#39;s a lovely walk&#33; (oh, the public path is clearly marked on OS maps, so you&#39;ll know which path I&#39;m on about)

    Maybe I ought to have another walk there & see if there is any place to have a virtual cache....


    paul

  8. #8
    The Hornet Guest

    Default

    Afraid I have to disagree (again ) Paul about removal of caches. As I said before, you are a sensible sort of chap and many (no, lets say most) cachers are also sensible. Slightly mad perhaps but generally sensible. Am I making sense? Probably not but anyway.....

    You have a clearly defined idea in your own mind as to what constitues a good or bad position for a cache, based on your interpretation of the various sets of guidelines in place at the moment. I have my own, probably slightly different, ideas based on the SAME sets of guidelines (almost all of which by the way I consider highly sensible). Another cacher may well have another interpretation etc., etc., etc.

    Now if we all agree to start removing caches based on our own personal ideas/prejudices/interpretations, call them what you will, we run the danger of starting a wholesale clearance. I know this is getting extreme but it illustrates my concerns at a possible outcome.

    I will say it again - I believe the proper approach is to NEVER physically remove a cache but to e-mail the cache owner and get them to do so. Then if there is any debate I would suggest contacting either GC.COM admin for a ruling or the UK approver(s) if he/they are available.

    I think it is wrong for you, I, or any other "normal? " geocacher to set ourselves up as judge/jury/executioner.

    You may be absolutely sure of your ground by I&#39;m not that sure about mine which is why I&#39;m urging caution. After all there is a very fine line between removal and trashing and I wouldn&#39;t want to see "proper" geocachers get involved or even accused of the latter. If we have seen "flaming" from time to time I reckon it&#39;ll be nothing compared with what we will get into if people&#39;s caches are summararily removed by other cachers.

    In the style of one of my football team&#39;s favouite managers "Do I not want to see that&#33; "

  9. #9
    Daisy&amp;me Guest

    Default

    I&#39;m with the Hornet on this one. Removing other peoples caches would really stir up a hornet&#39;s nest. No pun intended.

  10. #10
    Omally Guest

    Default

    I wouldn&#39;t remove any cache. The main point (or one of them, at least) of being a cache manager is to make sure your cache adheres to guidelines and common sense. It may be the case that you need to learn more about being a good cache manager as you progress through your geocaching "career", and the best way to learn is by using your own noddle accompanied by the odd polite word from those more experienced. To actually have someone do something for you does not help you to learn very much.

    To draw an analogy: If you have to learn to type, it&#39;s no good someone sitting down at a keyboard and saying to you "this is how to type, watch this" when you&#39;d learn a whole lot more about typing by sitting at a keyboard and pressing the buttons yourself.
    Oh, and there&#39;s always a delete key, so you can erase any mistakes you make.

    If a cache really did need to be removed, then a polite email with a strong recommendation should be enough. Can&#39;t and shouldn&#39;t run everyone else&#39;s caches for them, I have enough to worry about with my own&#33;

  11. #11
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Now here&#39;s a surprise.

    I agree with Omally.

  12. #12
    MCL Guest

    Default

    What would I do? Only one of two possible things:

    IF I OWNED THE LAND THE CACHE WAS ON: Remove it, and notify the listing site and tell them why, and let them sort it out.. Thats it. Period. No more need be said. There is no argument to be had. So lets not have one. It my land and I&#39;ll damn well do what the hell I like on it.

    IF I DID NOT OWN THE LAND (much more likely in reality): I would contact the listing site and tell them the problem. Thats it. Period.


    Why? Ok here goes. A cache is only a cache becuase it is listed somewhere. You can hide a box somewhere and it is useless until you tell others where it is. That is the job of the listing site. As part of this they are also the de-listing site. If a cache is listed that breaks the rules of a particular listing site or the landowner (and I imagine any listing site would have at least one rule of "you cannot place a cache on private land against the wishes of the landowner" ) then since it is the listing site&#39;s rules that have been broken, it is up to them to decide whether they wish it to continue to be a cache. If they do, then its not your place to decide otherwise. If they don&#39;t then it will be de-listed until such time as they manage to sort something out with the cache owner.

    I suppose there is no intense objection to anyone contacting the cache owner direct to let them know that you have lobbied the listing site about their cache, but frankly, its not your job and you may well be treading on someone&#39;s toes if you do.

    It IS your job to report to the listing site. After that, your job is done.

    It is ABSOLUTELY NOT your job to remove the cache (unless, as I caveated above, the land is actually yours). Unknown to you, the cache may be listed on more than one site, and while it breaks the rules of one, it may be perfectly allowed on another. To remove it would effectively be to impose the rules of one listing site (the one you happen to use) on the the caches of another (that you don&#39;t use).

  13. #13
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Aug 4 2003, 01:53 AM
    What would I do? Only one of two possible things:

    IF I OWNED THE LAND THE CACHE WAS ON: Remove it, and notify the listing site and tell them why, and let them sort it out.. Thats it. Period. No more need be said. There is no argument to be had. So lets not have one. It my land and I&#39;ll damn well do what the hell I like on it.

    IF I DID NOT OWN THE LAND (much more likely in reality): I would contact the listing site and tell them the problem. Thats it. Period.


    Why? Ok here goes. A cache is only a cache becuase it is listed somewhere. You can hide a box somewhere and it is useless until you tell others where it is. That is the job of the listing site. As part of this they are also the de-listing site. If a cache is listed that breaks the rules of a particular listing site or the landowner (and I imagine any listing site would have at least one rule of "you cannot place a cache on private land against the wishes of the landowner" ) then since it is the listing site&#39;s rules that have been broken, it is up to them to decide whether they wish it to continue to be a cache. If they do, then its not your place to decide otherwise. If they don&#39;t then it will be de-listed until such time as they manage to sort something out with the cache owner.

    I suppose there is no intense objection to anyone contacting the cache owner direct to let them know that you have lobbied the listing site about their cache, but frankly, its not your job and you may well be treading on someone&#39;s toes if you do.

    It IS your job to report to the listing site. After that, your job is done.

    It is ABSOLUTELY NOT your job to remove the cache (unless, as I caveated above, the land is actually yours). Unknown to you, the cache may be listed on more than one site, and while it breaks the rules of one, it may be perfectly allowed on another. To remove it would effectively be to impose the rules of one listing site (the one you happen to use) on the the caches of another (that you don&#39;t use).
    I think MCL makes the point well here. Add to that all the grandfathered caches out there that may or may not follow the guidelines ("Have YOU checked your caches to make sure they comply???") and policing these guidelines could be hard.

    I agree with MCL and I think that we should now be looking for a GAGB member&#39;s charter/code of conduct otherwise there could be problems down the line.

  14. #14
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Anyone here "hallucinate" that the future for the GAGB will include in the future cache approving/listing?

    Or ...

    Do you see the GAGB becoming an almost "invisible" wheel/cog within GC.com handling admin and approving?

    Or something else ...

  15. #15
    MCL Guest

    Default

    No, I see the future of GAGB being one of a liaison between Landowners and the people that run the various listing sites.

    Think of it this way: The listing sites need caches in order to function. This means they need people to place and list caches on their site. This implies that they need the landowners to at least not be hostile to the game. Since it is unlikely that the landowners will contact all the listing sites, and the listing sites can in no way contact all the landowners (and wouldn&#39;t if they could anyway) there exists a hole in the middle for an organisation to be the facillitator between the two "authorities" that dominate the game.

    We can function as a kind of ACAS of the caching world.

    That is the main reason I said ion another thread that we should not be seen to be affilliated to closely to *any* one listing site or for that matter any one landowner either.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •