Controversy - Who's responsible?

[noikmeister]

I thought this might make an interesting debate, but let me start off by discouraging all flaming and trolling. Let's make this a civilised and impersonal debate please. Try to be as general as possible when describing a cache and if you think someone is criticising your cache, take it as constructive and try not to flame anyone.

Through my short caching career I have come across a few (very few to be sure) caches where the hide was so good and/or the hint so absent or esoteric that GZ is a little, let's say, worse for wear because of it.

Now you may claim the searchers are responsible or that the hider has a share since they brought the finders there in the first place.

As a person of great emotion I know of the feeling of frustration about not being able to find a cache that I know is there and it is very difficult to exhibit self control in such circumstances.

I'll leave my own opinion out of it for a while and let the debate run.

Please be polite, people.

[Philipp]

Both. Very simple

As a cacher it's your resposibility to search without changing or even damaging the surrounding. However if you place a cache itÄs also up to you to find a piece of land which won't be disturbed by any cachers or your hint is so good, that even the dumbest cacher won't destroy anything.

Leaning back and just saying "Hey the owner should give a better hint" isn't very smart: You can log a DNF
Leaning back and just saying "Hey the searcher could have been ore careful" isn't very smart as well: You should now that there are some VERY left-handed cachers out there.

cheers

[CraigRat]

Both people are responsible, it's pretty cut and dry to me.

I've seen enormous environmental damage at the simplest of hides.

Those who hide GCA caches would see that we STRONGLY encourage hints on even the simplest of hides but nagging you at listing time. This is something I put in the system after seeing appalling damage at several cache sites over one single weekend.

Hiders need to pause for a moment and think about how GZ is going to look after a dozen finder have been there and to me it appears that grassy areas and areas with ferns or brittle plant life seem to be the areas that sometimes do not do very well after a good handful of finders. Hints are, in my opinion, VITAL to minimise environmental impact, even on those hides where it is totally obvious to you.

Finders have just as much responsibility when searching for a cache, and I'll be honest, some people are like bulldozers in their search methodology, and I can remember instances in the long distant past where I could tell when certain teams had been to a cache before I got there, sad but true.

[Bewilderbeest]

I agree with the last couple of speakers. Finders/seekers have a responsibility to treat the location with due respect, but hiders should also consider the consequences of their hide and the sort of behaviour (and possible damage) likely it is likely to produce.


At the risk of taking this debate out of the hypothetical realms, I know of the cache that sparked this discussion. All I can say is that no one should be surprised that a camo'd nano hidden in the bush has apparently caused GZ to get trashed.

[Team Wibble]

Both. Commonsense would dictate that people would hide caches that don't encourage damage, and that people would take care when searching for a cache. Unfortunately you can't rely on commonsense. All you can do is mitigate this by avoiding hides in such areas and keep reminding people of their responsibilities when searching for caches.

Now as for the "no flaming, no trolling" in this thread:

You should now that there are some VERY left-handed cachers out there.
cheers

What have you got against left handed cachers, huh??

[caughtatwork]

When I can find the cache easily then I blame the previous seekers for being knuckleheads. When I can't find the cache easily then I blame the hider for being a knucklehead.

There are some caches that I walk up to and find even though the difficulty is a 3 or higher. There are also some caches that I have trouble finding that are a 2 or lower. Sometimes you're in the zone and sometimes you're not.

Co-ordinate accuracy is a big help or hindrance to finding a nano cache in the bush. Is the hider inexperienced in knowing that their "walk up and mark" for their co-ordinates is not a good method? Same thing for the seekers. Do they know that they should probably let their GPS settle before starting the hunt?

There are a myriad of factors that can lead to a larger area that the original hide being searched. Should we blame the hider? Yes. Should we blame the seeker? Yes. Should we blame the websites for not allowing an EPE to be listed as part of the cache details? Yes. Should we blame the demise of the game on nano and micro caches? Yes.

Each to their own. A responsible hider will provide a hint (cryptic or not). A responsible seeker will not trash the area. These two caching types are common in the game, but there are also many knuckleheads who don't respect the environment, so you accept what you can change and move on with those things that you can't.

[noikmeister]

Well it is more than one cache that prompted me to start this thread. The one I experienced had 5 -10 large stringy bark tree denuded of much bark and that cache even had a reasonable clue plus some previous logs to indicate its position more accurately. yet still the DNFs continue often followed by a find. Very odd.

[Yurt]

We found one recently that was about a 100m "bush-bash" from the end of a fire trail. There was no clear path and it looked as though every cacher in the past had taken a different path to the cache. We tried to follow the most clearly bashed trail but even then it was hard to follow. In sandstone country we always try to stick to the rocks as much as possible. The dry bush seems to tolerate it a lot better than the soft fern forest.

Am currently planning a cache or two in some nice bushland but with this in mind I'm making sure the final approach is on an existing track or over rocks. This certainly cuts down the hide options but as my aim is to raise awareness of the bush I don't want it to be damaged as a result of my actions.

[Papa Bear_Left]

The problem with hints is that they're taken as just part of the description by many cachers so, when placing a cache where where the hiding method is a main point, a give-away hint makes the thing rather pointless.

(BTW, I base this assertion on a couple of inferences. A couple of experiences of chance-met cachers at new-ish caches arriving with the clue already read (e.g. "we're looking for a hollow log..." comments) and the preponderance of first-time cache placers with stuff about parking or best approaches in their hints. They obviously need theUMP's oft-used macro that starts "A hint is supposed to be something that's decoded after a search has failed and some further clue is needed." because they never considered the hint to be "coded information.")

Apart from that, I agree with the consensus that hiders need to put themselves in the shoes of searchers and think about the area they've chosen; how likely is damage if you don't know exactly where to look? Plus that searchers need to consider if a smiley is really worth ripping out plants and demolishing walls, etc. (yes, I've seen it...)

There's a matter of perspective involved, too. I'm also appalled when I see a cache area trampled or grass trees denuded or whatever, and I certainly don't think it's a good advertisement for the game. However, one kid on a trailbike or idiot in a 4WD where it shouldn't be does more damage in one afternoon than all the geocachers in Australia have done, ever!

It's just that they don't leave a note on their damage with an email address for the local "Friends of the bit of scraggly urban bushland" organisation to complain to!

[pprass]

The problem with hints is that they're taken as just part of the description by many cachers so, when placing a cache where where the hiding method is a main point, a give-away hint makes the thing rather pointless.

That's what I was going to say!

Some hints are not hints at all - I call them "tells". They are so descriptive that it makes the need to use a GPS totally redundant - which is the main point of geocaching I thought We add a hint - and usually a cryptic hint, only when it is a really difficult cache, or where it is in a high muggle area. We try to ensure that we provide very good co-ordinates and that the terrain/difficulty rating is spot on.

BTW - what's wrong with LH cachers

[PesceVerde]

It's everyone's responsibility, but everyone doesn't seem to agree.

This went in my too hard basket a while back, so I just try to cache in a way that works for me.

[noikmeister]

I agree that it is everyone's responsibility, but the hider is the one who should try to anticipate everyone else's behaviour and searchers are responsible for their own behaviour. Then the hider needs to take responsibility for adding description or hints to a cache where searchers aren't doing the right thing, or in extreme circumstances, archive the cache.

[blossom*]

Sometimes it's hard to give an appropriate hint that won't give away the spot. But I think what can work in those circumstances is a "not-hint". This can save a lot of random searching that could damge an area. An example would be "it is not hidden amongst the ferns" or "it is no more than 3 metres from the path". These sort of not-hints shouldn't really be coded, they can form part of the description so EVERYBODY knows they ought not look in that spot.

[noikmeister]

Sometimes it's hard to give an appropriate hint that won't give away the spot. But I think what can work in those circumstances is a "not-hint". This can save a lot of random searching that could damge an area. An example would be "it is not hidden amongst the ferns" or "it is no more than 3 metres from the path". These sort of not-hints shouldn't really be coded, they can form part of the description so EVERYBODY knows they ought not look in that spot.

Agreed. This is an excellent solution.

[belken]

I think the finder shoulders most of the responsibility. There is very little reason to destroy an area. A search can be done with care.

Having said that I have seen some hiders put caches in locations that can only cause damage. ie up embankments or under coastal vegetation that is very brittle.

Most of our caches are designed for the experience not so much a hiding method. So our hints are designed to pin point the locaction.