Would This Be Considered "burying"?

[+g0t0pless]

Here's my idea for a good way to hide a cache:

 

Get a 12" piece of 4" PVC or ABS pipe. Put a cap on the one end. Bury it in the ground so the open end is just above ground level, maybe like 2" higher than ground level.

 

Get a 10" piece of 3" PVC or ABS pipe. Put a cap on the end, and a removable cap on the top. Drill a small hole in the top cap and attach a short piece of chain, maybe 5 or 6 links in length. Attach the other end of the chain to the bottom of a flat rock. Airbrush, engrave, or otherwise inconspicuously mark the rock with the geocache logo.

 

Put the cache inside the 3" piece of pipe and drop it into the 4" piece. Put the rock on top, and consider it done.

 

Like this:

 

My question is this: Is this considered burying? Since you don't need a shovel to dig it up, and I'd put some hints in the cache description, I don't think it would be a problem.

 

The other way I could do it is to bury the 4" piece of pipe so that only the top is exposed, then use a removable plug which is painted brown, green, gray, etc to blend in.

Edited September 17, 2005 by g0t0pless

[MapheadMike]

... Bury it in the ground...

...

...My question is this: Is this considered burying?...

Absolutely. You said it in plain English. You would seem to need a shovel (or trowel or something similar) to hide it and that makes it a foul.

[+g0t0pless]

OK. I was thinking more along the lines of it being illegal so cachers wouldn't be digging all over the place looking for them. That, and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to find if it were buried.

 

This would have a rock covering it, with a small geocache logo to make it known to anyone specifically looking at that location that "this is it", so no shovel or digging would be necessary to FIND it.

[+cache_test_dummies]

so no shovel or digging would be necessary to FIND it.

You can't dig when you place a cache, either.

 

According to the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, you can't have:

 

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.

[+Renegade Knight]

Looks like a nice cache, but it's buried since you have to dig to place it. If the property owner gives you permission to place it like that, you could likely get it approved.

[+Kit Fox]

I have found rocks with caches hidden in PVC tubes underneath them. I have found sprinkler caches. I have also found a Peanut butter jar hidden at ground level. The lid was attached to a piece of plywood, and the rest of the cache was underground, hidden inside a piece of ABS.

 

These three types of buried caches are all against the rules. Fun, but against the rules.

 

Why does the guideline say no burying of caches? To appease land managers who were concerned cachers were going to go to natural areas, they manage, with shovels, looking for "treasure." The no burying rule opened these areas up to caching.

Edited September 17, 2005 by Kit Fox

[Keystone]

Looks like a nice cache, but it's buried since you have to dig to place it. If the property owner gives you permission to place it like that, you could likely get it approved.

That is absolutely correct. And even with permission from the property owner, I would check with Groundspeak before listing it.

 

g0t0pless, since you live only a few miles from me, I'd be reviewing your cache. So there's your answer. There are three buried caches in Southwest PA that I know of. Two are hidden just as you described, but without any disclosure of the hiding technique. A third one went via the permission route and was listed with Groundspeak's blessing.

[+Harry Dolphin]

So, instead, wedge it into a natural crevice in the rock, and put a benchmark-like disk over it! Hmm. I like this idea!

[+g0t0pless]

Thank you all for the replies, especially you Keystone. I am still toying with the idea of using PVC pipe, I just won't be burying it.

 

Keystone, mind if I PM you in regards to some other cache ideas I have?

[Keystone]

Thank you all for the replies, especially you Keystone. I am still toying with the idea of using PVC pipe, I just won't be burying it.

 

Keystone, mind if I PM you in regards to some other cache ideas I have?

You're quite welcome. I am glad to see a new hider with creative ideas here in my immediate home area! That means more good caches for me to find.

 

I try to keep my forum work here in the forums, so I prefer PM's for moderator related stuff. For cache review stuff, including questions about cache ideas, e-mail is the best. Please note that I, like many reviewers, tend to respond faster to cache submissions that have already been placed, and we answer general inquiries as and when time permits.

[+Sparrowhawk]

I have an active cache which a hole was dug in order to design the neat little miniature cave it lives in. No shovel needed to find it. I mentioned my plans for it in the forums - and it created a HECK of a discussion!

 

It got approved after a lot of opinionated thoughts were posted from both sides... I think mine was a special case, though, due to it's unique design and placement.

Edited September 17, 2005 by Sparrowhawk

[+Newfiezedder]

Want a way to go without digging, find a pre-existing hole and fill it in around your pipe. No digging required for placement. Just a thought, and it obeys the rules. Perhaps a Geo-rock as the top piece to make it easy to identify.

 

Edit - to add the Geo-rock idea

Edited September 17, 2005 by newfiezedder

[+Anonymous']

Want a way to go without digging, find a pre-existing hole and fill it in around your pipe. No digging required for placement. Just a thought, and it obeys the rules. Perhaps a Geo-rock as the top piece to make it easy to identify.

 

Edit - to add the Geo-rock idea

Yes, very good idea. A lot of times you can find a rotten stump where it's rotted enough so that there is an existing hole in the ground.

[+MissippiSlim]

As a new guy and someone who's not hidden a cache yet, let me see if I have this straight. If a property owner had a 12" piece of 4" PVC, capped on one end, that he didn't have any good way to dispose of so buried it vertically as so:

 

 

there wouldn't be a problem if the pipe, with the owner's permission, were used for a cache as described? Obviously, in other words, a case where the landowner is happily involved in the cache hide. Seriously, it wouldn't violate the rules if the landowner did the burying, would it? Nor the spirit of the rules? I'm just askin'.

 

Ricky

[+briansnat]

As a new guy and someone who's not hidden a cache yet, let me see if I have this straight. If a property owner had a 12" piece of 4" PVC, capped on one end, that he didn't have any good way to dispose of so buried it vertically as so:

 

 

there wouldn't be a problem if the pipe, with the owner's permission, were used for a cache as described? Obviously, in other words, a case where the landowner is happily involved in the cache hide. Seriously, it wouldn't violate the rules if the landowner did the burying, would it? Nor the spirit of the rules? I'm just askin'.

 

Ricky

Landowner's permission could change things depending on the circumstances, but its still not a good idea. People come along and find it and copy the idea, not knowing it had special permission. Next thing you know they are springing up all over the place.

 

The idea that we bury caches is what got this sport banned from the our national parks and some other public lands and its an image that we have been fighting for a few years now. It makes it tough to tell land managers that we don't bury caches when there are specific examples of buried caches out there.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Ok, there are some practical problems with the plans being presented.

 

But I do like the diagrams.

 

How about this plan?

 

[+Xopster]

OK just so this thread covers every possible 'nuance' to this question what if this pipe is inserted into a 'pre-exisiting' hole, either natural or man-made? In other words, if I placed it but "I" didn't have to use a "shovel, trowel or pointy object" would that be ok?

 

What if I got a friend to ask his second cousin's girlfriend to dig the hole and I was out of town on that day and wasnt told it had actually been dug until I happened upon the hole by routine inspection? (All bases should be covered by attending a large formal gathering so as to provide substantial alibi on date of hole digging).

 

Hiding a Geocache on Courtenay Love (lead singer of Hole) is never appropriate under any circumstances and will be immediately disqualified by GC.COM. NO EXCEPTIONS!

 

In all seriousness I like this cache concept but I when I read that 'digging' is an absolute no-no I completely rule it out when I am searching so if someone hides one this way I would tend to be a little frusterated with the hider when later on I find out that it did violate this convention. If there are possible exceptions to the 'no-dig rule' than spell them out for all to know.

Edited September 18, 2005 by Xopster

[nobby.nobbs]

Ok, there are some practical problems with the plans being presented.

 

But I do like the diagrams.

 

How about this plan?

 

it'll never work, bet the weight stays ther until the coyote walks onto the spot ten it'll fall!

[+robert]

In all seriousness I like this cache concept but I when I read that 'digging' is an absolute no-no I completely rule it out when I am searching so if someone hides one this way I would tend to be a little frusterated with the hider when later on I find out that it did violate this convention. If there are possible exceptions to the 'no-dig rule' than spell them out for all to know.

Under the "off limits" section of the guidelines you read when you hide a cache:

 

"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."

 

Seems pretty spelled out to me. Doesn't matter if it was you or your uncle's cousin, and doesn't matter if the digging takes place to hide the cache or find the cache. Both are off-limits. Think of all the NPS land that's out there that would be awesome for a cache but can't be used because of the perception that caches are buried. Threads like this don't help.

[+TeamAO]

Thank you all for the replies, especially you Keystone. I am still toying with the idea of using PVC pipe, I just won't be burying it.

 

Keystone, mind if I PM you in regards to some other cache ideas I have?

You're quite welcome. I am glad to see a new hider with creative ideas here in my immediate home area! That means more good caches for me to find.

 

I try to keep my forum work here in the forums, so I prefer PM's for moderator related stuff. For cache review stuff, including questions about cache ideas, e-mail is the best. Please note that I, like many reviewers, tend to respond faster to cache submissions that have already been placed, and we answer general inquiries as and when time permits.

Creative new cache hiders in the Pittsburgh area are sure welcomed!

[+Newfiezedder]

Wow my preexisting hole caused quite a discussion, it was more of a joke (playing devils advocate). But all this made me think of the evil lawn sprinklers micros. I haven't come across them myself but certainly read about them here, are they buried or just laying on the ground?

[+JanniCash]

Maybe to comply to the rules, one could work the other way around and make the stone part of the cache container. Take a suitable stone home and make a hole, big enough for most of the cache container, into the underside of the stone. Then afix a part of the container so that the stone itself becomes a vital part of the container.

 

Depending on the size it'll be a hell of a job to place such cache in difficult terrain, but I was wondering how the OP intended to attach the chain to the stone out there in the wilderness anyway. Haven't seen too many battery operated, pneumatic hammer drills yet.

 

Jan

[+dogbreathcanada]

The idea that we bury caches is what got this sport banned from the our national parks and some other public lands and its an image that we have been fighting for a few years now.  It makes it tough to tell land managers that we don't bury caches when there are specific examples of buried caches out there.

I encountered two caches almost exactly as described above (they were both approved just last week). Digging was involved in burying the PVC piping. After talking with the cache owner, it would appear that our approver (mtn-man) okayed them after she told him how they were hidden. Strange. One of them is buried in a city park, and I'm pretty sure permission from that park board was not obtained.

 

At one of the cache hides, there were six of us wandering the area for nearly two hours, searching ... mainly because we were pretty sure the cache wasn't underground (you know, because it's illegal), even though the hint suggested it might be ("The cache may be under your feet"). We were looking instead for cleverly camouflaged logs or fake ferns or patches of grass.

 

I wonder if we're now going to see an influx of "buried" caches in the Vancouver area, because so many people are going to be impressed with the difficulty of these hides, yet not know that burying is supposed to be a no-no. Is mtn-man going to be consistent and start allowing all underground caches in our area? Or is he just going to pick and choose the buried caches depending on how "nice" people are in their correspondence to him?

 

Still can't figure out why they were approved in the first place.

Edited September 19, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[+briansnat]

After talking with the cache owner, it would appear that our approver (mtn-man) okayed them after she told him how they were hidden. Strange. One of them is buried in a city park, and I'm pretty sure permission from that park board was not obtained.

 

Has Mtn-man verified that?

[+dogbreathcanada]

After talking with the cache owner, it would appear that our approver (mtn-man) okayed them after she told him how they were hidden. Strange. One of them is buried in a city park, and I'm pretty sure permission from that park board was not obtained.

 

Has Mtn-man verified that?

No. But I can't imagine this cacher telling falsehoods. This based on conversations I've had with her on other topics. I'd ask mtn-man about it, but I somehow doubt he'd be very forthcoming. There's some sort of code of silence among approvers when it comes to the caches they've approved and why.

[Keystone]

There are no archived "notes to reviewer" for this cache page, and that is how mtn-man prefers to communicate with cache owners. The cache was published the same day it was submitted.

 

Please submit actual proof to substantiate your allegations. Better yet, deal with this specific issue outside the forums.

[Clan Riffster]

Another question concernng burying;

 

I'm looking at placing my first private property cache, on a large chunk of land near my home. There is an old barbed wire fence that cuts through the property. The posts are mostly rotten and the barbed wire is mostly rusted off. The property owner tells me this fence has been dilapidated for decades, and was originally used as a cattle seperator.

 

My thought was to add another post to the fence. I would need to buy a post, antique it to match the others, insert a container into the body of the post, (hidden of course), then use post hole diggers, (AKA: pointy things) to sink the post. I think the land owner will grant permission for the plaement of the post, but would it be disqualified due to my having to dig, in order to place it?

 

Plan "B" calls for the same antiqed post to be layed down along the fence line.

[Keystone]

I would go with Plan "B" unless you have the patience to seek permission from Groundspeak for what you've described.

 

Think of it this way: once someone sees a "sunken fence post" hide, they'll then be motivated to dig up other fenceposts when stumped on other cache hunts.

[MapheadMike]

Think of it this way: once someone sees a "sunken fence post" hide, they'll then be motivated to dig up other fenceposts when stumped on other cache hunts.

Wouldn't the same theory speak against fake sprinklers, fake bird nests, fake electrical boxes, and fake anything else that is usually considered favorably as "creative"?

[+dogbreathcanada]

Please submit actual proof to substantiate your allegations. Better yet, deal with this specific issue outside the forums.

What? You want me to photograph the caches? I can. Holes were dug to place the cache. Feel free to contact the cache owner, or anyone who found it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...1a-ba5a85d8edf4

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6a-dac7ffbf2a56

 

Groundspeak approved these caches, according to the cache owner with Groundspeak (i.e. mtn-man) permission. Perhaps you should speak with the cache owner, if her hides are breaking Groundspeak policy.

[+dogbreathcanada]

Think of it this way: once someone sees a "sunken fence post" hide, they'll then be motivated to dig up other fenceposts when stumped on other cache hunts.

Exactly ... which is why I'm surprised you're not at all concerned about the buried caches I mentioned. Pretending they don't exist won't make them go away.

[+briansnat]

Please submit actual proof to substantiate your allegations.  Better yet, deal with this specific issue outside the forums.

What? You want me to photograph the caches? I can. Holes were dug to place the cache. Feel free to contact the cache owner, or anyone who found it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...1a-ba5a85d8edf4

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6a-dac7ffbf2a56

 

I think he was referring to the allegation that Mtn-man knowingly approved caches that were clearly in violation of the guidelines.

[Keystone]

I wasn't asking for proof that the caches were buried, but rather for proof that this fact was known to the reviewer. I am sure that I've listed buried caches without knowing that fact. Am I concerned about them? Absolutely. Will this be addressed with the cache owner? I imagine so, but not in the forums.

 

At this time I will remind you of the need under the Forum Guidelines to be respectful of Groundspeak and its volunteers.

[Clan Riffster]

I would go with Plan "B"

Plan "B" comin' up!

[+dogbreathcanada]

I wasn't asking for proof that the caches were buried, but rather for proof that this fact was known to the reviewer. I am sure that I've listed buried caches without knowing that fact. Am I concerned about them? Absolutely. Will this be addressed with the cache owner? I imagine so, but not in the forums.

I am respectful of Groundspeak volunteers. I have the utmost respect for mtn-man. I was just passing on what I was told. I have no proof he was knowlegable of the state of the cache at review, other than the word of the cache owner. Could she be lying? Maybe, but that particular cache owner doesn't seem to be that sort of person. Perhaps there was a miscommunication between the two concerning how the cache would be hidden.

 

As to your contention that mtn-man does most of his communication via "note to reviewer" log entries. That's not necessarily true. I know I do most of my communication with mtn-man either through email (he's given me an email address that he says is the quickest way to reach him) or through PMs on the forums (since I know he's on the forums daily).

 

I'm not trying to make anyone a public enemy here ... just want to make sure that more of these caches do not crop up in Vancouver. They run the danger of being discovered by park managers, which run the danger of getting geocaching banned in our local parks. That would be very bad news for caching in Vancouver and environs.

[Keystone]

Since you insist on airing this matter through the public forums, and since mtn-man isn't active in the forums today, I will respond further.

 

The first of the caches you linked to has no reviewer notes and no suggestion that the cache is buried. I can see no reason why a reviewer would question that cache before listing it.

 

The second cache *did* contain a reviewer note at the time of submission. It said:

 

a pipe embedded vertically in the ground with a cap made of a natural rock- should be tricky

 

mtn-man replied with a reviewer note *on the cache page* as follows:

 

Do you have permission for this cache located in this manner in this location?

 

Just post a note on this cache page as 'Post Reviewer Note'. That type of note will be automatically deleted when the cache is approved.

 

I would also have questioned the owner about the hiding method, given the initial note. Take special notice of the method of communication specified by mtn-man in his reviewer note. The cache owner followed those directions, and posted a follow up reviewer note which stated:

 

is at the entrance of a public urban walking trail so should not need permission- does not disturb the natural environment in any way.

 

In reliance on the owner's assurance that there was no "disturbance," the cache was then listed. I would have done the same thing. Reviewers have to rely upon geocachers to describe their hides accurately. If, in fact, digging was required in order to place this cache, then it cannot be said that no disturbance was required.

 

As for your self-serving statement that you are being respectful in your posts to this thread, I call your attention to the following statements, which led me to post my cautionary note:

Is mtn-man going to be consistent and start allowing all underground caches in our area? Or is he just going to pick and choose the buried caches depending on how "nice" people are in their correspondence to him?

 

I'd ask mtn-man about it, but I somehow doubt he'd be very forthcoming. There's some sort of code of silence among approvers when it comes to the caches they've approved and why.

 

I'm surprised you're not at all concerned about the buried caches I mentioned. Pretending they don't exist won't make them go away.

 

Further statements of this nature will not be tolerated in this thread, which has for the most part been a nice practical discussion of the buried caches rule.

Once again, I urge you to take this matter up offline.

[+dogbreathcanada]

In reliance on the owner's assurance that there was no "disturbance," the cache was then listed. I would have done the same thing. Reviewers have to rely upon geocachers to describe their hides accurately. If, in fact, digging was required in order to place this cache, then it cannot be said that no disturbance was required.

I'm not saying mtn-man did anything wrong. Obviously he has only a cache owner's word in any communications. I only had the cache owner's word when she said that mtn-man was fully aware of each cache's state at time of review. Obviously, she exagerated that claim a little.

 

As for the PVC piping with respect to the cache that did receive communication ... digging was involved. The piping is the diameter of a jar of spaghetti sauce (which is what is contained in the PVC piping). The piping is buried up to a foot in depth in the ground. We had trouble getting it back in the hole, since the walls of the hole were caving in.

 

Maybe I'll just post SBA notes on both caches.

[+dogbreathcanada]

Okay, I'll let it rest now Key.

 

I decided to post SBA notes for GCQJJV and GCQE8H.

 

I'm going to be viewed as the ultra-villian ... but, oh well. Better that than risking copy-cat caches around the area and risking a cache ban by any parks that discover such "buried" hides. I know that GVRD Parks monitor caches on their lands.

[VectorHound]

is at the entrance of a public urban walking trail so should not need permission- does not disturb the natural environment in any way.

 

I have found many caches, well done, in interesting places, mostly seeming to comply with the rules (but sometimes maybe bending a rule). But many gave me a "sense' that they really did NOT offically get permission from the land managers. I can't prove that, but based on experience, my suspicions are strong. Now, if they are in a sufficiently "public" place, do they not need specific approval. I have heard that some follow the "frizbee rule"'... that if you could play frizbee without permission, you could hide a cache without permission. I have also heard of "everyone knows they give permission" ("they" being the parks dept, trail system, etc), so we don't bother with individual, specific permission. I have also seen "moving" caches, that change locations daily,... some with literally a 100 "hits" , and I doubt each move was with "permission". Are there looser guidlines than I've been following??? Getting permission seems to take more time / effort than any other part of the hide in my limited experience, so I can see the temptation to shortcut.

[+Team Haxor]

I have a cache out in the woods. I founds a pile of pine needles on teh ground. With my hands I carved out a section for my container to sit in the needles, then covered it up, with a corner of the container sticking out. Is this still within the rules of geocaching?

[Keystone]

I have a cache out in the woods. I founds a pile of pine needles on teh ground. With my hands I carved out a section for my container to sit in the needles, then covered it up, with a corner of the container sticking out. Is this still within the rules of geocaching?

You are fine, unless your real name is "Edward Scissorhands."

[+Team Haxor]

Cool. Thanks. I have been enjoying this hobby for about 8 months now and want to make sure I follow the "rules" so others can enjoy as much as I have had.

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

... Bury it in the ground...

...

...My question is this: Is this considered burying?...

Absolutely. You said it in plain English. You would seem to need a shovel (or trowel or something similar) to hide it and that makes it a foul.

aw but do you need to use a shovel to retrieve it? the answer is no. People hide stuff under rocks all the time what is the difference? the anser is nothing except you create your own hole instead of finding a natural hole. get it.

[Keystone]

... Bury it in the ground...

...

...My question is this: Is this considered burying?...

Absolutely. You said it in plain English. You would seem to need a shovel (or trowel or something similar) to hide it and that makes it a foul.

aw but do you need to use a shovel to retrieve it? the answer is no. People hide stuff under rocks all the time what is the difference? the anser is nothing except you create your own hole instead of finding a natural hole. get it.

Wrong. As has been observed above, the "no buried caches" rule applies to both the hiding and the finding of a cache. Either form of digging is likely to cause concern for a land manager.

[+mtn-man]

Please submit actual proof to substantiate your allegations.  Better yet, deal with this specific issue outside the forums.

What? You want me to photograph the caches? I can. Holes were dug to place the cache. Feel free to contact the cache owner, or anyone who found it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...1a-ba5a85d8edf4

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6a-dac7ffbf2a56

 

Groundspeak approved these caches, according to the cache owner with Groundspeak (i.e. mtn-man) permission. Perhaps you should speak with the cache owner, if her hides are breaking Groundspeak policy.

This is very simple Mr. DogBreathCacheCopBC.

 

I was told that the holes were existing holes.

If I was not told the truth, then it is what it is.

[+dogbreathcanada]

Please submit actual proof to substantiate your allegations.  Better yet, deal with this specific issue outside the forums.

What? You want me to photograph the caches? I can. Holes were dug to place the cache. Feel free to contact the cache owner, or anyone who found it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...1a-ba5a85d8edf4

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6a-dac7ffbf2a56

 

Groundspeak approved these caches, according to the cache owner with Groundspeak (i.e. mtn-man) permission. Perhaps you should speak with the cache owner, if her hides are breaking Groundspeak policy.

This is very simple Mr. DogBreathCacheCopBC.

 

I was told that the holes were existing holes.

If I was not told the truth, then it is what it is.

They were not existing holes (you can tell by the area around the hides). That's bunk.

 

And even if they were existing holes ... how is anybody else to know that? It still sets a precedent for others to dig holes to hide their caches.

[+dogbreathcanada]

This is very simple Mr. DogBreathCacheCopBC.

Trying to ensure that bad cache placements don't get our hobby banned in my province is suddenly a bad thing?

[Keystone]

This is very simple Mr. DogBreathCacheCopBC.

Trying to ensure that bad cache placements don't get our hobby banned in my province is suddenly a bad thing?

No, your statements quoted in my post above, and your general tone, is the "bad thing." There is a right way and a wrong way to go about fixing this problem. I am told that geocachers from your area will be working with the hider to correct these caches. That's a good way to go about it.

[+Gorak]

This is very simple Mr. DogBreathCacheCopBC.

Trying to ensure that bad cache placements don't get our hobby banned in my province is suddenly a bad thing?

Perhaps he is referring to a perceived overzealousness on your part to ensure that every cache you encounter strictly adheres to your interpretation and perception of the "rules" regardless of any other information or hider/approver dealings that you may not have been privy to. Or perhaps he is referring to a perceived predilection on your part to air these issues dealing with specific caches in the forums and on cache pages rather than by the preferred method of PM’s or email. Perhaps I'll even get moderated for stating the obvious.

 

If you feel slighted, you can always send a complaint to contacts@geocaching.com.

[ju66l3r]

If you feel slighted, you can always send a complaint to contacts@geocaching.com.

The ironic part of this statement is that any dogbreathcanada complaint e-mails sent to "contacts@geocaching.com" will go into oblivion as it's not a valid address....and oblivion's where they belong.

 

I believe the mailbox you're looking for is contact@Groundspeak.com