Would This Be Considered "burying"?

[+Gorak]

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

No wonder I never get any replies!

[+dogbreathcanada]

I am told that geocachers from your area will be working with the hider to correct these caches.

That's cool. But shouldn't the cache, while it's being "fixed", be temporarily archived, so that cachers who come across it in the meanwhile don't get the mistaken impression that such hides are acceptable?

[+mtn-man]

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?

I apologize for that name. It was not proper and is uncharacteristic for me.

 

It is exceptionally frustrating to get a PM from you at 12:19 AM this morning (which is 3:19 AM my time) and not even get 24 hours to deal with it before you have to bring it up naming specific caches in a public forum. I think you should not have named the caches publicly without posting a SBA note or giving the reviewer some time to deal with your information. I wonder if you even contacted the cache owner. I think you could have and should have dealt with the issue in general terms in the forums and given specific information to GC.com or to me.

 

I would recommend in the future that if you send a message to anyone in the middle of the night that you at least allow them the time to respond.

 

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.

Frankly, maybe if you would have waited longer than 10 hours, you might have gotten your answer from me directly without having to make such broad allegations about me.

[+mtn-man]

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.

OUTRAGIOUS!

 

I would like an apology. In other words, I have no integrity?????

 

 

Ask anyone... one thing I do have is integrity, thank you. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I am and have always fully supported the guidelines. Your statements in that post are absurd and absolutely not true. I can tell you that Hydee would not stand for this "code of silence among approvers" that you have dreamed up.

 

I would like to thank Keystone for posting my notes from the actual cache page. I do it that way for a reason, and this topic shows you why. I want everyone in the admin and reviewer positions to know what I have done on cache pages. I don't have to dig through emails if there are questions. The answers are right there. Thanks for the help while I have been out this weekend. I owe you another one.

[+dogbreathcanada]

I would recommend in the future that if you send a message to anyone in the middle of the night that you at least allow them the time to respond.

I had a much longer message here ... it basically boiled down to an apology for my comments about you. They were out of line. I won't divert anymore of this thread toward the issue of those two caches.

 

(I'll send you the longer message via a PM.)

Edited September 20, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[+dogbreathcanada]

I would like an apology.  In other words, I have no integrity?????

 

       

 

Ask anyone... one thing I do have is integrity, thank you.  I say what I mean and I mean what I say.  I am and have always fully supported the guidelines.  Your statements in that post are absurd and absolutely not true.  I can tell you that Hydee would not stand for this "code of silence among approvers" that you have dreamed up.

 

I would like to thank Keystone for posting my notes from the actual cache page.  I do it that way for a reason, and this topic shows you why.  I want everyone in the admin and reviewer positions to know what I have done on cache pages.  I don't have to dig through emails if there are questions.  The answers are right there.  Thanks for the help while I have been out this weekend.  I owe you another one.

That didn't come out right. I honestly wasn't trying to comment on your integrity. It just seemed like general Groundspeak policy that ALL reviewers weren't allowed to comment on internal cache issues. Apparently I was wrong in this assumption.

 

I know you say what you mean. And I know you mean what you say. In the immortal words of Popeye: "I y'am what I y'am."

 

Anyhow, my apologies for wording my statement in such a way that it impinged upon your integrity.

Edited September 20, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[+mtn-man]

Thank you. We both made mistakes.

Sorry DBC. I was extremely upset when I read this today.

[+Milbank]

Glad that's over, now lets get back to the fun stuff.

[+wild wiggly beanz]

Not sure I am replying properly but here it goes....

 

Our team placed two caches in our series in the spirit of fun and creative caches. It is completely our mistake and responsibilty for the "illegal" nature of our cache.

We did not read the burying policy on caches. It was our negligence but not out of lack of care for the environment or disregard for the guidelines of a sport we love. As an engineer, my husband followed all the safety rules appropriate in their placement and was ready to get permission from the city engineers if necessary as he works closely with many of them.

As we have chosen to replace the caches, we will not be contacting the city.

 

We apologize for the controversy this has caused and the cache in question will be replaced as soon as possible. We have not disabled it as it is part of a series and in fairness of cachers who have not obtained the clue we would like to leave it active until we can move its location today or tomorrow. We have put a note on the cache explaining the situation.

 

This is not the negligence of the approver or anyone at Ground Speak, for whom we have the outmost respect, but our mistake as new and keen cachers. Mtn Man, as mentioned did ask me about the first cache and I replied that I did not think it disturbed the environment. I did not believe so as it was a landscaped rocky decorative bed at the entrance of the path. The second cache was not described but not in any attempt to conceal the nature of the cache, but because I am a mother of three kids and just didn't think to do it. It was not Mtn Man's oversight but my own. I do not lie. I did not try to hide anything and it is my responsiblity to correct the mistake.

 

Again apologies from our team !

 

I do not agree with these forums in that I was never contacted to reply to allegations. I was not contacted directly for the mistake I made and if I had been this whole issue and problems surrounding it could have been completely avoided.

 

We cache in the spirit of fun and creativeness and will continue to do so.... but we will read the fine print on the caches we should be hiding.

 

Thanks to the caching community in our area that have emailed me with positive support of our caching efforts.

 

The Wild Wiggly Beanz

[+dogbreathcanada]

Thank you. We both made mistakes.

Sorry DBC. I was extremely upset when I read this today.

No need for you to apologize at all. It was I who was entirely in the wrong.

[+mtn-man]

I do not agree with these forums in that I was never contacted to reply to allegations. I was not contacted directly for the mistake I made and if I had been this whole issue and problems surrounding it could have been completely avoided.

So very true.

 

It has been a treat to work with you on your alphabet series. You have worked hard and responded to all of my notes. This all seemed odd and out of character from what I have gathered with our past dealings, and it all turns out to be an honest mistake.

 

Thanks for you post and explaination. I can't wait to get the last of the series listed out there for you.

[4wheelin_fool]

So I guess this means I can't bury a cache in a cemetary.

[+MissippiSlim]

So I guess this means I can't bury a cache in a cemetary.

No, but as I understand it, if the hole is already there you can use it for the cache just not bury the cache.

 

Now, if the hole happens to be about 7 feet by 4 feet by 6 feet deep, you might want to rethink using it.

 

MissippiSlim

[+Xopster]

deleted

Edited September 25, 2005 by Xopster

[Keystone]

Xopster, I am sorry to read of these difficulties. The issues, however, are best addressed as a private matter with Groundspeak. I trust that you've brought this to their attention via e-mail; if not, please feel free to do so.

 

But as for this thread, let's keep it on topic to helping people with questions about what constitutes a buried cache, and under what circumstances they can be published.

 

Thanks.

[+jimmyreno]

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.

I just found 2 caches this last week that were buried and wondered about "THE RULE", soil was loose/sandy so I didn't need a pointy tool. Just used my fingers.

 

Technically legal, but not really the kind of cache I want to spend time looking for.

[+treasure_hunter]

I just found 2 caches this last week that were buried and wondered about "THE RULE", soil was loose/sandy so I didn't need a pointy tool. Just used my fingers.

 

Technically legal, but not really the kind of cache I want to spend time looking for.

Was the container visible without uncovering it? If it wasnt then that was against the rules, but if you can see any part of the container than it is fine.

[+robert]

Was the container visible without uncovering it? If it wasnt then that was against the rules, but if you can see any part of the container than it is fine.

If the entire container is underground except the lid, then that's buried. I found one two years ago that was a 5 gallon bucket that was underground except the lid, which was covered with a rock to "hide" it. That's buried. Even if the entire cache isn't covered by earth, it's buried.

 

In a sandy situation, I'm willing to bet a case could be made to allow it but not in a typical hide found in most of the U.S.

[+robert]

whoops

Edited September 26, 2005 by robert

[+AtoZ]

Is a cache under an inche or two of pea gravel concidered buried???? Found on this weekend placed in a very visible location i.e. lots of folks watching in landscaped area at a Starbucks.

cheers

[+briansnat]

Did they have to dig to place it? That's the key. Technically a cache hidden under leaves or sticks is "buried" but perfectly legal. Its digging that is the issue.

[+Quiggle]

Merging duplicate topic.

[ju66l3r]

Is a cache under an inche or two of pea gravel concidered buried???? Found on this weekend placed in a very visible location i.e. lots of folks watching in landscaped area at a Starbucks.

cheers

Yes, and unless it's changed, it should be archived. The accuracy of the GPSr is not enough to tell you that you're in the right spot to start pushing gravel around.

 

This means you must root around in the gravel looking for the cache and that disturbs what sounds to be a private company's landscaping. Even if they gave permission for the cache (and I doubt it), I doubt they knew what they were allowing when they go out to find all the gravel shoved about or out of the box later from cachers who started searching in the wrong spot and did poorly to recover the situation.

[+Polar B's]

Is a cache under an inche or two of pea gravel concidered buried????  Found on this weekend placed in a very visible location i.e. lots of folks watching in landscaped area at a Starbucks. 

cheers

Yes, and unless it's changed, it should be archived. The accuracy of the GPSr is not enough to tell you that you're in the right spot to start pushing gravel around.

 

This means you must root around in the gravel looking for the cache and that disturbs what sounds to be a private company's landscaping. Even if they gave permission for the cache (and I doubt it), I doubt they knew what they were allowing when they go out to find all the gravel shoved about or out of the box later from cachers who started searching in the wrong spot and did poorly to recover the situation.

I don't agree, How is peagravel any different than leaves, bark, or trwigs. Where is the line that an items is covered as opposed to burying? I think that since the peagravel can be move with your hand it's not burying. Besides the reason for the rule was to protect the land for people digging holes to place caches, how is anything destroyed is the peagravel is move and then replaced? I mean peagravel moves if it's stepped on, so movement to find a cache would not be noticed.

[+wandererrob]

I don't agree, How is peagravel any different than leaves, bark, or trwigs. Where is the line that an items is covered as opposed to burying? I think that since the peagravel can be move with your hand it's not burying. Besides the reason for the rule was to protect the land for people digging holes to place caches, how is anything destroyed is the peagravel is move and then replaced? I mean peagravel moves if it's stepped on, so movement to find a cache would not be noticed.

if you have to dig to hide or find it, it's not cool.

 

Perhaps the rule about "buried" caches needs rewording. If I understand it correctly, it's digging that is the issue.

 

Even so we can sit here going in circles for days finding exceptions and trying to draw lines.

Edited September 26, 2005 by wandererrob

[+Polar B's]

So all the caches that are covered in things are now supposed to be archived?

The rule is pretty clear

 

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.

 

If using your hand is considered a pointy object then 95% of the caches in my area have to be archived.

[+wandererrob]

So all the caches that are covered in things are now supposed to be archived?

The rule is pretty clear

 

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.

 

If using your hand is considered a pointy object then 95% of the caches in my area have to be archived.

No, my hands are not pointy. But it's still a bad idea to dig around in somebody's gravel landscaping work to hide or find a cache.

 

Like I said, we could spend days finding exceptions to the rule.

 

Use your best judgement. If in doubt, don't do it.

[+Polar B's]

Not to beat this to death....but

 

Ok I can agree with the fact that if the peagravel is part of a landscaping, it would not be cool.

 

However, If the cache is placed in a more public space, not proofessional landscaped, and covered in gravel (or other material easily moved, sand and such...obviously soil is not considered since even if it was easy to move when placed, at some point it would require something pointy to retrieve) how different is this from moving leaves and twigs to cache a cache?

 

edit: spelling

Edited September 26, 2005 by Polar B's

[+wandererrob]

Not to beat this to death....but

 

Ok I can agree with the fact that if the peagravel is part of a landscaping, it would not be cool.

 

However, If the cache is placed in a more public space, not proofessional landscaped, and covered in gravel (or other material easily moved, sand and such...obviously soil is not considered since even if it was easy to move when placed, at some point it would require something pointy to retrieve) how different is this from moving leaves and twigs to cache a cache?

 

edit: spelling

Though an example fails to spring to mind at the moment, I think you have a reasonable point there. Should one happen upon a bunch of random, uncared-about gravel, I suppose one could view that as being little different from using pine needles or something of the sort.

 

Actually, upon further thought, I suppose an old, unmaintained roadside of some sort might even fit the bill. Like along an old logging road or something? Or an abandoned railroad bed (i.e. sans tracks)? Then you'd be using what's there without making any real changes to the environment.

 

But such instances should be clearly spelled out for the cache approver. Then it's in their hands.

Edited September 26, 2005 by wandererrob

[immygrant]

I realize this topic has not been visited for a while, but I just had to add my 2cents to it. Personally, I think that placing a cache should be completely without restrictions. I believe that when you are caching. not placing, that you should have restrictions. Simply put......the cacher is not allowed to dig and make holes in search of caches, but the placer of the cache has to make the cache accessible to the cacher without the said cacher having to use any tools for digging and such. This makes total sense to me and in my opinion avoids all the previously mentioned conflicts discussed here. No one wants to see our parks and public lands destroyed by unruly geocachers, that is why the onus should be on the placer to make the cache properly accessible for the cacher.....this does not mean that the placer cannot use tools, but the cacher definitely cannot.

Cheerio,

ImmY

[Motorcycle_Mama]

If you read the Guidelines for placing a cache you will see that you are wrong.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived.

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

* Caches on land managed by an agency that prohibits geocaches, such as the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges)

* 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.

* Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

[Gen Santa Ana 2]

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.

When you post a SBA use a sock puppet account, that keeps you from being a known villian. The first SBA note I posted made me a villian around here for about a year. While I find some cachers will support you when you post a SBA on a cache, a lot will not because you are messing with their numbers if it is a cache they have not had a chance to get.

 

I know two of the local reviewers know who my sock puppet is. I also e-mail a photo of the illegal cache

There is one are that I cache in in which as many as 30% of the cache finds I have made are illegal.

This is a case of monkey see monkey do. New cachers just copy waht they see.

 

IMHO the no bury guidline should be a rule with no exceptions.

 

I am not just talking burried caches, I have seen caches in this one area that are bolted or screwed into private property, In one cache the hidder dismanteled a park dept sign then hollowed out part of the sign in order to hide a cache inside of the sign itself, the same cacher placed a cache in the hollow of a living tree with fiberglass casting resin.