Stop Garden Bed Destruction

[Rabbitto]

We are too often finding Garden Beds that have been destroyed due to geocaching. Enough is enough and it is time for us all to bring this practice to an end.

<p>When it comes to caches in the vicinity of garden beds - PLEASE FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINES

<p>HIDERS

<p>1. DO NOT place caches further into a garden bed than can be accessed within an easy reach of the path. Even ONE step off the path is too much.

<p>2. When submitting a cache, highlight in clear type near the TOP of the cache page "You do not need to leave the path to find this cache" NOT in the middle. NOT near the bottom. NOT in the hint.

<p>3. If there are many places within a garden bed that the cache can be hidden. DETAIL EXACTLY where the cache is. DO NOT make finders move 100 or so plants to eventually find your cache. DO NOT hide this information in the hint.

<p>4. DO NOT use Misleading Descriptions or Misleading Hints on your cache page.

<p>5. DO NOT HAYSTACK. Especially in areas of tree cover or poor reception.

<p>FINDERS

<p>1. ALWAYS assume that the hider has followed the above. DO NOT place even one foot in the garden to make your search.

<p>2. If you cannot find the cache - Walk Away, Call the Owner, Email the Owner, Phone a Friend, Show your concern in a DNF.... Any of these options is better than trampling flowers and plants to get the find.

<p>3. ALWAYS take care with the environment in which you are searching.

<p>4. HELP guide people who are new to the sport so they are aware.

<p>As the more experienced cachers in our community, we need to rein in this problem RIGHT NOW. If we do not self regulate, then local, state or federal governments are going to do it for us and believe me when I say - WE DO NOT WANT THIS

[fehrgo]

Here here.

[The Spindoctors]

Put them in the bush instead. Otherwise, do as the Bunny suggests.

[Nosugrefs]

We agree completely

[caughtatwork]

I support your guideline, regrettably, many others won't.

We can make an impression by following the guideline and hopefully others will see and learn from the caches we place.

Is there a particular situation that prompted the suggestion or is it just general garden destruction that you've observed?

[Zytheran]

Totally agree.
Anyone can hide a plain container in the middle of a thick bush in the middle of a garden bed.
However it is much more challenging and *much* more satisfying to find a well camoed container within easy reach of the path.
The perfect cache for gardens should be just about in plain view to all but only cachers know it is really there and can 'see' it.
I imagine most of us would rather find 1 container like this rather than 5 'naked' ones.
All it takes is a digital camera to photo the plants and the kids paints...your cache logs from finders will be much more satisfying.

[wombles]

I had this problem with 1 in Brisbane in a playground/park I couldn't see where it could possibly be excpet in the middle of a garden. I didn't want to be traipsing through a newly planted garden bed to find a cache.

[andiamo]

A bit off topic, but have been tempted to write the following note on a log -went to look for this cache, but did not think it appropriate to walk across 40m of delicate foreshore and a further 50m of mangroves to locate it when there is a perfectly good park nearby to hide the cache in. Do you think the owner of the cache would get upset with such a log?

[rhinogeo]

I support your guideline, regrettably, many others won't

<p>The gc.com guidelines preclude the placing of caches in <i> areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans</i></p><p>If recalcitrant hiders persist, a 'Needs Archived' log should sort them out </p><p>Of course, that will not help if the caches are listed on GCA </p>

[caughtatwork]

Of course, that will not help if the caches are listed on GCA </p>

Why not?
You don't think we don't have the capability to archive caches if warranted?

[Papa Bear_Left]

Of course, that will not help if the caches are listed on GCA </p>

Why not?
You don't think we don't have the capability to archive caches if warranted?

Wouldn't that be impinging on cachers' personal freedoms?

But, seriously, who would do the archiving, and under what circumstances?

[rhinogeo]

Of course, that will not help if the caches are listed on GCA </p>

Why not?
You don't think we don't have the capability to archive caches if warranted?

<p>I've no doubt the power exists amongst the gurus and faeries </p><p>But how does one report transgressions in a <i>free and open</i> and unregulated paradigm </p>

[CraigRat]

But how does one report transgressions in a <i>free and open</i> and unregulated paradigm </p>

Post a 'Needs Archiving note', contact the hider, contact support if it's of a serious nature

What I'd do is post a note and contact the hider outlining my concerns.

[caughtatwork]

Of course, that will not help if the caches are listed on GCA </p>

Why not?
You don't think we don't have the capability to archive caches if warranted?

<p>I've no doubt the power exists amongst the gurus and faeries </p><p>But how does one report transgressions in a <i>free and open</i> and unregulated paradigm </p>

Of course, that will not help if the caches are listed on GCA </p>

Why not?
You don't think we don't have the capability to archive caches if warranted?

Wouldn't that be impinging on cachers' personal freedoms?

But, seriously, who would do the archiving, and under what circumstances?

Both extremely good questions and there is no canned response.
I have archived half a dozen GCA caches that aren't mine.
Granted, none of them have fallen into the scenario that we have been discussing in this thread, but it has been done.
Archiving also doesn't happen all that frequently, so no-one should be getting their panties in a knot suggesting that I archived because I'm feeling snarky.

When we discussed GCA reviewers a while ago, it was advised then, that a SBA should be left on the cache. Then a discussion would occur between site developer and cache owner to determine whether there was an issue.

Anything after that is in not very often tested waters, so I can't give a general comment.

An archive is not likely to happen for a cache as described in this scenario. I would hope that the rating system (showing a rating of 1), or other logs would reflect on the cache and it's hide style and people would choose not to go hunting it.

Remember that there are two people(s) causing issues with a cache in a garden bed. The one who hid it and the plethora of people who find it.

No-one can control how people go about finding caches. Even if it is clearly stated in the description that the cache can be found without leaving the footpath, people simply do not read the cache descriptions.

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.

How many times have you found a cache that says you don't have to leave the track and ... had to leave the track? I can count a dozen at least.

How many times are you told it's not in the garden, yet when you get there there is destruction galore because people didn't believe the cache description?

Post a SBA. Sensible discussions will then take place between site owner and cache owner and all will end up right.

[Geodes]

C@W's comments are right on the button. I've just come back from inspecting the cache site in question and am quite surprised at the damage. When Farmers and I found it, neither of us entered the gardens at the rear of the building and it was pretty evident that noone including the cache hider had done so since it was planted. Anyone that would simply bulldoze into a garden bed of densely packed waist height plants like that is hardly likely to be put off by the disapproval of this forum anyway .
<P>
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.