Fake bolts in road signs: Is it vandalism?

Geocacher welch has asked another good question for this blog. Citing a discussion thread in the geocaching.com forums, welch asks:

"...it is vandalism to have seekers take a bolt out of a sign... Like 'if they removed a sign bolt to replace with a fake one then it would be vandalism, but if they filled a hole that was already open it wouldn't be'...
What would be your reply to that thread? How about if the bolt hole theading was stripped out so the bolt could be pulled out (by hand), allowing the sign to swing away, and a cache was hidden underneath?
What about if the bolt was just a hollowed out and magnetized bolt head that onlystuck to a sign so it looked real, but was just 'hanging' there?"

In general, these sections of the guidelines apply to the questions about roadsign bolts:
"Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method." and... "For all cache types please be sensible when choosing your location for cache placement. Please be aware of what may be a perceived to a non-geocacher as dangerous or questionable behavior."

If a real bolt is removed to insert a cache disguised as a fake bolt, this would reduce the structural integrity of the sign's attachment to its mounting, so it would not be an approvable cache, IMHO. But even if a hole already exists in the sign and a fake bolt is inserted, I still don't like it. It's not good to have muggles and law enforcement see geocachers messing around with street signs. However, if the geocache owner makes a point of obtaining permission from the local police chief to place such a cache, and then states that permission in a note to the reviewer or on the cache page, this could result in the cache being approved, provided there aren't other circumstances that also need to be addressed.

What a December!

I don't know why it's happening, but this has been a crazy month for new caches. I have already approved more than 130 new cache listings in Iowa during December, in addition to a number that have been archived, plus lots of contact with geocachers about one thing or another. Maybe it's because we haven't had much snow yet combined with the annual Christmas surge of new GPS units in the hands of newbies. Whatevever the reason, there's been no let up during the past few weeks. I hope you're enjoying new cache finds in your area.

Thoughts about sharks

Please excuse another non-geocache-reviewing post. I've corresponded with a few of my fellow geocachers about our recent dive trip to the Bahamas and our shark dives, so here are a few photos. It was a truly amazing experience. What I learned: Sharks are not evil. They are beautiful creatures and unlike what we landlubbers are led to believe by Hollywood, they don't automatically eat humans whenever they encounter them in the water.

Thanks for the help

If you had a cache approved in Iowa last week, did you notice that the reviewer was Electric Mouse instead of IowaAdmin? My thanks to reviewer Electric Mouse for filling in for me while my wife and I took a week-long vacation away from the Internet and email connections.

Reviewers have several options for handling vacation time. I think most of us choose to continue our reviewing duties while on vacation because of the increasing availability of Internet connections. However, in my most recent case, we were out of the country in a hotel that didn't have Internet in the rooms, so I wrote to Electric Mouse ahead of time to ask for her very capable assistance. Things must have gone smoothly because I didn't have anyone write to say "Boy, am I glad that you're back!"

Just kidding. I didn't really expect that.

Anything to make a buck

I was just now viewing some of the ways people try to make a buck off of geocachers by selling all sorts of geocaching stuff on eBay. You can view some of their ideas here. Some of these items are very clever. Some are just plain foolish and even dangerous. Example: magnetic electrical coverplate microcaches. The description states "This cache can be placed on any flat metal surface such as a electrical box, AC unit, metal lightposts, etc." True, it can be attached, but if the reviewer is aware that it's bee placed on electrical equipment, it shouldn't be approved for listing on geocaching.com. Before you spend your money on these types of caches, please review the guidelines and think twice about where you may be encouraging geocachers and their family members to look for caches.

Under woodchips. so is it buried?

Yesterday I received the following email from IGO member Welch:
-------
Actually, while I'm emailing you I have a question about the guidelines (and something you can put in your blog if you like). Can caches be buried in 'soft' materials?
When the topic comes up in the gc.com, some people point that if a cache were buried in sand then no tools/point objects would be needed to hide or find the cache. Which is what the guidelines say, "Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate." So assuming I could get land owner permission to bury a cache, would it be listable? (I doubt any parks would let me bury anything, but the idea has me thinking of parks that have small streams with sandy bottoms/shores that are otherwise well mowed...)

Also a few weeks back I ran across a cache that had been buried in the mulch around one of those big wooden park signs. And no I don't mean they layed it on and top and piled loose mulch/chips over, it was like 5" deep. Though even the bottom was mulch too so I guess maybe it wasn't really had to dig all being mulch. Let me explain... the person got short lenght of 4" pvc and buried it vertical so the end was flush with the ground, then they put a fake drain cover over it. And then down inside the tube they put a small fake valve handle (so it looks kinda like a water shut off valve). The valve was of course not really, and if you pull up it comes up to reveal a pill bottom. I don't have any pictures of this thing, but its sorta similar to this thing on ebay
so since no tools were apperently used to hide the cache, it was ok right?
welch
-----
Before answering welch (which I'm doing here), I did a little "digging" of my own in the files of the reviewers' online forum, where we ask each other questions about whether a certain cache should be approved (and sometimes just shoot the bull). There, I found opinions relevant to the two questions posed by welch, and they matched what I have been assuming.

As welch points out, the geocaching.com guidelines say that a cache should never be buried. The tricky part comes in trying to define "buried." To shed light on this, Geocaching.com guidelines further state: "If a shovel, trowel or other 'pointy' object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate."

First, regarding the first cache example from welch, I think this would probably be OK. When geocachers search for this cache in a sandy river bottom area, they're going to be pushing sand around to look for it. The litmus test that I would use is, does their moving sand cause harm to the area or look like suspicious activity? I'd say probably not.

Regarding the second example, since this is in a more travelled area, it might cause attention and suspicion -- not to mention damage to the landscaping -- when geocachers start moving wood chips around to find the geocache. However, if the cache page description clearly states that the cache container is in plain view and no moving wood chips is required, then it might be approvable.

Why geocaches are discouraged under bridges

We have a number of geocaches placed under bridges in Iowa. Of the ones I approved, it's because the owner has assured me that the bridge is part of a hiking/biking trail or it is in a rural area that doesn't see much traffic. However, as a general rule, caches under bridges are discouraged because bridges could be possible terrorist targets. If you need more convincing, here's an article that points out what can happen. (Thanks to fellow reviewer Hemlock for bringing this article to my attention.)

Questions about changing multicache waypoints

Here's an email I received on Sunday, followed by my response.
-------------
I was just curious how something works. If someone has a multi cache out there, what are the guideline for changing the coords for stages other than stage one? Does the cacher need to have the cache re-approved? What if they are leaving the first stage the same, but only changing the next stages? Also, Do you see when multi stages are updated or just if they update the waypoints? Just curious!
---------------
If you need to change coordinates for a stage of a multicache, you don't necessarily have to it reapproved. You have the ability to enter new coordinates as long as they are not more than a certain distance from the old coordinates. I haven't tested it, but I've been told the maximum distance you can move them yourself is about 100 feet. You use a link on the Edit page for your cache to change coordinates. If you need to move them more than what is allowed through that link, you can email me with the new coordinates and I will review.

As far as I know, I don't get an automatic notice when intermediate waypoints are moved, like I do with the "main" coordinates are moved by the owner.

I hope this answers your questions.

Ken
IowaAdmin
--------------
Thanks for your prompt response. That was the answer I needed!!!

Questions from CC8C4

Here's an email I received yesterday...

IowaAdmin,
Thank you so much for your work approving caches! All of the new caches in eastern Iowa must be keeping you busy! The web site advises that it could take 72 hours for a cache to get reviewed. Of my 13 to date, you have had them all published within two! Some questions for your blog,
How many hours a week do you have to spend reviewing caches?
What are the top 10 reasons a cache is disapproved, or requires more work?
How did you get the honor/curse of becoming IowaAdmin?
How long have you been approving caches?
Larry, Cindy, and Becca Darling (CC8C4)
Tipton, IA.

Thanks, Larry. Here are some answers...
How many hours a week do you have to spend reviewing caches?
It varies by season. In the dead of winter, it might be as low as 2 hours per week. In the warm days of summer, it can range from 5 to 12 hours or so.

What are the top 10 reasons a cache is disapproved, or requires more work?
Wow. Do I have really have to come up with 10 reasons? :) Here are some of the reasons, not necessarily in order of "topness." Placed on DNR-managed land without permission. Didn't use the "add/edit waypoints" feature on a multicache to enter all the waypoints. Placed too close (less than 528 feet) to an existing geocache. Placed in a cemetary without permission from the caretaker or owner. Placed on or near electrical equipment. Placed in the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife Refuge (geocaching is not allowed there). Placed in one of several counties or municipalities where a geocaching permit is required. Those are the biggies.

How did you get the honor/curse of becoming IowaAdmin?
I lived in Iowa for the first 32 years of my life. I now live in Wisconsin but I am in Iowa frequently to visit relatives and for business. My reviewing stemmed from my association with the Wisconsin Geocaching Association, which I helped found. Back in the "old days," Jeremy and the rest of the Groundspeak crew decided to designate geographic areas to reviewers. Prior to that, I was helping review caches all over the country. Groundspeak asked two other Wisconsin reviewers to review Wisconsin, and since I have Iowa roots and connections, I was asked to review for Iowa. I started out using the ID WGA2, but now another reviewer is using that for approving caches in Wisconsin so I started a new ID: IowaAdmin. My "regular" IDs are kbraband (for solo geocaching) and active2gether (for caches I find with my wife). While some reviewers believe in hiding their true identities, I don't do that. I believe that by working together with fellow cachers to get caches approved according to the gc.com guidelines, there should be no reason to keep my ID. secret.

How long have you been approving caches?
I've been geocaching since Feb. 2001, and reviewing since some time in 2003.

Thanks for the questions, Larry.

Maggie Potts

It's been nice to see geocachers step up and adopt several of Maggie Potts' geocaches, after her unfortunate passing away. The IGO board asked how might be the best way to handle the adoptions, and we agreed to archive her old ones and create new listings with the same names. This give geocachers added incentive to revisit these caches.

"Vacation" caches

It happened again this morning. I had to archive a new cache submitted for approval because the owner who placed it does not live nearby. In this case he lives more than 2,000 miles away!

One of the recurring reasons for someone's new submitted geocache to not receive approval is that the owner does not live in the area of the cache. This circumstance falls under the so-called vacation cache guideline, which Geocaching.com frowns on because these caches are often difficult for the owner to maintain. However, exceptions can be made if the owner states -- either in a note to the reviewer or in the description on on their cache page -- how they will be able to maintain this cache. The most common exceptions are when the owner has a relative who lives near the cache who will provide maintenance, or if the owner regularly gets back to the area, say at least once a month or so.

A note about "notes to the reviewer"

Today I had emails from two different geocachers -- mostly routine stuff about getting their caches ready to list -- and both of them asked me to delete my "note to the reviewer" so that geocachers don't see it once the cache is approved and listed. So, I thought I'd offer here a little insight about how "notes to the reviewer" work. When a cache is published and goes online, notes to the reviewer are automatically erased from view. However, they are still viewable to the reviewers if we click on a link called "view archived logs." This is a handy feature because it allows reviewers to save correspondence from the owner on the cache page, such as notes about how the cache is hidden, or the contact information for the park manager who granted approval, etc.

More discussion about electric box geocaches

Yesterday I enjoyed an email discussion with a geocacher who
asked me to clarify and discuss further why her geocache that is made out of a former electric utility box (but is no longer hooked up) could not be approved. In my response, I sent her this link to a forum post by a geocacher who works for a power utility. It's expert advice from someone who knows firsthand the dangers of conditioning geocachers to look inside or around electric equipment. Quoting from his post:

I am asking in behalf as a Safety Professional and Geocacher please not to hide caches on or around electrical equipment and not to even look for a cache that may be on or around any electrical equipment. If you believe that it is in a hazardous zone please contact the person who placed the geocache. If that is not a successful route please contact the person who approved it. Most of the time the approver of a geocache is not aware that it is in a dangerous zone. Let’s look out for each other.

For these reasons and others mentioned previously in this blog, these types of caches are not a good idea. I know some have been approved in other states, but I don't know why because it's doubtful that the business or utility company that owns the electrical equipment granted permission for the cache to be there.

Here's the reply from the geocacher with whom I was having the email discussion:

Thanks for the reply. I understand completely. It is good to get an explanation sometimes.

Those Jeep travel bugs

Windchill wrote to me today and suggested that I post an update on what I know about this summer's Jeep travel bug distribution. So, here's what I know. Groundspeak (the company that runs geocaching.com) has posted a note in the Reviewer's forum saying that any reviewer who wants to distribute Jeeps to geocachers in their areas should let them know. I didn't see the post until recently so I put in a request for about 60 to 80 Jeeps because that's what I received in past years. Another more recent post says that the first round of shipments have been mailed out, with another round coming soon.

Additionally, this year there was a mail-in request form process to give everyone an equal chance to receive a Jeep Travel Bug directly from Groundspeak. All you had to do was fill out a form and mail it in. Anyone who did so within the first two weeks (approx) of the sign-up period "will definitely get one" according to Groundspeak (despite what the form says). I've heard that some individual geocachers are already receiving theirs directly from Groundspeak.

If I wasn't too late to get me request in and I do get a shipment this year, I'll forward them to IGO board members for distribution to Iowa geocachers.

Another nice note

I received this nice note from an Iowa geocacher. Thanks. Comments like this serve as a reminder that the purpose of reviewing geocaches is a service -- to keep the sport fun for the most people possible.
-------------------
Good Grief! Ref: Kaboom That was quick!
Thanks a lot. You do such a great job for all of us out here in cache land. We really appreciate you!
LoBri

Our Canadian experience

A friend and fellow geocaching "old-timer," jvechinski, wrote that I should blog about my recent trip to Whistler, British Columbia, where I bagged a few geocaches (of course) in addition to doing zip lines, white water rafting, mountain biking, hiking, dancing and dining... (lots of dining). So by popular request, and even though they have nothing to do with reviewing geocaches, here are some photos. (Yikes, this is awful layout design. Oh well.)

A nice trip followed by kind words

This past weekend my wife and I and two other couples rented a houseboat out of McGregor, IA and boated the Mississippi River for 3 days. It was great! I was planning to take my laptop along and find wifi hotspots to review caches a couple of times, but at the last minute I decided to "disconnect" for the weekend. I thought this might cause a few geocachers to wonder if their new caches were EVER going to be reviewed. My apologies to those of you who waited patiently. I guess not everyone is ticked off, because here's a very nice email received today.
------------------------

IowaAdmin:

Hi! We are relatively new to geocaching & have recently placed 3 caches in the Ames area (all of which were approved quickly).

Just wanted to take a minute & thank you for the time you spend reviewing & publishing caches. I'm sure it's very time consuming & we appreciate your volunteer spirit!

Thanks also for your blog, I just took some time & read through all the past posts & they were very informative. Lots of good information for placing future caches.

Thanks again for your time & dedication!
Angie B
RedheadBasset
Ames, IA

People are different

The answer to this question may be obvious, but have you ever noticed how different people can be? Case in point: For the past couple of months I've been asking geocachers whose caches I review and who have additional waypoints for multicaches, to use the "add/edit waypoints" feature on the edit page to enter their coordinates. To my way of thinking, it's a fairly straightforward request and not that hard to do. Most geocachers see it that way. Most will say "OK, I didn't know about that feature," and they do it without whining. Then there are other geocachers who say something like "This is the final straw. I've had it!" and they proceed to let me know how this is the worst thing that has ever happened to them. Yup, people are different, all right. Sometimes that difference makes you appreciate the nice guys even more.

Think before creating a useless hint

I just posted this note to the owner of a new geocache:

"The only recommendation I will make is that you delete the text you placed in the hint field, since you're not actually giving a hint. It can be frustrating for some geocachers who spend the time at ground zero to decrypt a hint only to find there is no hint."

I try to post a note to the owner similar to this every time I see a hint like "No hint necessary." If no hint is necessary, why frustrate geocachers by making them decrypt the text you place there? The purpose of the hint is to give geocachers a final resort whenever they decide they have looked long enough and can't find the cache. If you think this through and put yourself in the geocache hunter's situation, it's easy to see why you shouldn't post a hint that says "No hint necessary." I know... there's nothing in the guidelines about this. But to me it's a matter of courtesy.