Stop Garden Bed Destruction

Map Monkey · Post by **Map Monkey** » 05 March 07 4:19 pm

Geodes wrote:How about suggesting a (GC Guidelines) ban on caches near public toilets (20m, say) - I defy anyone to claim that they actually enjoy such hides and I suspect people who do create them are being a bit malicious.

Why should all caches of this style be considered malicious or not enjoyable

There is (was?) a micro cache in Mt Gambier located in a "must-see" location yet is within 20m of public toilets....not that they are the "old" style toilet block, rather a modern facility that blends in with the surrounding buildings.

Whilst on the surface the thought of searching/lerking around a toilet is not my cup of tea, there are caches out there that are placed cleverly......this being one of them IMO. A majority of them may be considered unexceptable to many, yet there can be good caches placed by some.

Sorry to get off topic.......back to garden beds shall we?

mm

Geodes · Post by **Geodes** » 05 March 07 4:56 pm

Map Monkey wrote:
Sorry to get off topic.......back to garden beds shall we?
mm

Actually, I must have seemed OT, but the cache that has prompted this discussion (
<a href=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... GC1168G</a>)
is placed in the garden beds surrounding a toilet block in a very popular inner suburban park. The park is extensively used by the usual variety of muggles in its playground and on its lawns, and also has a University next door which provides another 15-20000 potential visitors on any particular day. The toilet block has been clearly signed as being "Under Constant Surveillance" and the park gets regular visits by local police and also by University security. Placing a cache anywhere in this park is a challenge (I should know - I work at the Uni and have wanted to put one here for a while), but putting one right near the toilet block seems to me to be a bit over the top.
<P>
Granted that some toilet blocks will prove the exception to the rule, I (at least) would be quite happy to see a restriction on this sort of hide in the same manner that hides near train tracks are forbidden.

Map Monkey · Post by **Map Monkey** » 05 March 07 5:04 pm

I realised that this may be more to this cache than we really need to know, even without an idea of the particular cache in question....just that you asked a question about toilet caches as a sideline and defying anyone to claim ........

I don't know the cache in question obviously and as such should not comment on the location, motivation etc.

mm

Map Monkey · Post by **Map Monkey** » 05 March 07 5:06 pm

I realised that this may be more to this cache than we really need to know, even without an idea of the particular cache in question....just that you asked a question about toilet caches as a sideline and defying anyone to claim ........

I don't know the cache in question obviously and as such should not comment on the location, motivation etc. ..... though it's not much of a trackable hotel yet (with no TB, geocoins in it)

mm

pprass · Post by **pprass** » 05 March 07 5:13 pm

I'm glad this issue pops up every 6 months or so. I feel that this is the best way to educate the caching community - to raise awareness and show that cachers are "observing/noting" other cachers methods/habits. As Rhino said - it is in the geo.com guidlines already, so we need to keep reinforcing our displeasure to bad caching methods.

And now just a point of correction:

caughtatwork wrote: How many people have mentioned that they've claimed a GAFF1 (no reflection on the originator of the GAFF system)? This means to me that they have followed their GPS to the co-ords on a traditional cache and found it without reading the cache description.

GAFF1 means that you haven't read any previous logs (if there are any), or looked at the hint, or asked for any help. It does not mean that you haven't read the cache description. However even if you haven't read the cache description and your confronted with a garden bed, common sense should prevail shouldn't it?

Post by **caughtatwork** » 05 March 07 7:06 pm

I didn't realise. Sorry about that.
If you could post the GAFF ratings, I'll make a wiki page, then no more shall I sin.

Common sense isn't all that common some days.

Cached · Post by **Cached** » 05 March 07 8:11 pm

i have to admit, (that my shift key isn't working) that i hardly ever read the description for a low diff/terrain traditional.

i think there are many many people in the same boat. i'd be much happier knowing there's a. no caches near toilets and b. there's no caches that could lead to garden beds being destroyed.

possible solution - graphic like the old "trade up or trade even" logo.

pprass · Post by **pprass** » 05 March 07 8:21 pm

caughtatwork wrote:If you could post the GAFF ratings, I'll make a wiki page...

I'll send you an email. Thanks C@W.

ps - this spell checker is fantastic

homedg · Post by **homedg** » 05 March 07 8:57 pm

I've never come across GAFF ratings OR the old "trade up or trade even" logo.

listmaker · Post by **listmaker** » 05 March 07 9:06 pm

Look here:

http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... aff2+gaff3

There might be a more comprehensive listing somewhere, but that's what I found recently.

Btw, the other reason for reminding cachers to respect gardens is to maintain the enjoyment of the find for everyone - sometimes those discarded sticks and footprints can be a dead giveaway.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 05 March 07 9:24 pm

Cool.

http://wiki.geocaching.com.au/wiki/GAFF

I can update the page anytime you want to pprass, but I thought I'd get it up there to start with.

homedg · Post by **homedg** » 05 March 07 9:33 pm

Getting things back on topic (not that I don't think the GAFF system has some merit) I added the the following to my most recent cache placement.
"There is no need to trample or rumage through the garden beds to find this one. Please respect the area."
Surely that should be enough

pprass · Post by **pprass** » 05 March 07 9:43 pm

homedg wrote:"There is no need to trample or rumage through the garden beds to find this one. Please respect the area."
Surely that should be enough

Unfortunately it has been proven on many occasions not to be.

Also thanks C@W.

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 05 March 07 9:46 pm

The cache that was removed from under the end of a boardwalk last year at the South Perth Council's request said quite clearly that you just needed to reach under the end of the boardwalk, yet the trouble came about because someone was wandering through the wetland remnant several metres away, following the magic arrow.

Bigger, red letters for this sort of information might help, as in this case it was a bit buried in a slab of text.

Inexperienced cachers may not have encountered a "cache crop circle" and so have little concept of the damage that can be done by a horde of keen FTFers! There's a tendency to assume that, because the placer knows exactly where it is, that's where people will be looking. The realisation that the flower beds 4-5m from the tree it's hidden in are well within a GPSr error radius takes experience to learn.

Ah, well, the problem will go away when GPS accuracy gets down to cm level in a couple of years!

Post by **caughtatwork** » 05 March 07 9:47 pm

Again, I agree that it should be enough, but probably won't be.

Think that 5-10 finds from now, each finders moves it to the next "bush" (sorry, I know nothing of the cache and know not whether it's under a bush).

Suddenly, the cache is actually in the garden bed, 2m from the path where you can't find it, so the trampling begins.

Not everyone (probably very few people) will do this, but you'd be surprised at how far a cache can creep from its original hiding place.